On Decidability and Complexity of Description Logics with Uniqueness Constraints

  • Vitaliy L. Khizder
  • David Toman
  • Grant Weddell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1973)

Abstract

We establish the equivalence of: (1) the logical implication problem for a description logic dialect called DLClass that includes a concept constructor for expressing uniqueness constraints, (2) the logical implication problem for path functional dependencies (PFDs), and (3) the problem of answering queries in deductive databases with limited use of successor functions. As a consequence, we settle an open problem concerning lower bounds for the PFD logical implication problem and show that a regularity condition for DLClass that ensures low order polynomial time decidability for its logical implication problem is tight.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Serge Abiteboul and Victor Vianu. Queries and computation on the web. In 6th International Conference on Database Theory ICDT’97, volume 1186 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 262–275. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander Borgida. Description logics in data management. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 7(5):671–682, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexander Borgida, Ronald J. Brachman, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Lori Alperin Resnick. Classic: A structural data model for objects. In James Clifford, Bruce G. Lindsay, and David Maier, editors, Proceedings of the 1989 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 58–67. ACM Press, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alexander Borgida and Grant Weddell. Adding uniqueness constraints to description logics (preliminary report). In International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pages 85–102, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peter Buneman, Wenfei Fan, and Scott Weinstein. Path constraints in semistructured and structured databases. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 129–138, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peter Buneman, Wenfei Fan, and Scott Weinstein. Interaction between path and type constraints. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 56–67, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Structured Objects: modeling and reasonning. In International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pages 229–246, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Answering Queries Using Views in Description Logics. In 6th International Workshop on Knowledge Representation meets Databases (KRDB’99), pages 6–10, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Keys for free in description logics. In International Workshop on Description Logics DL2000, pages 79–88, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Description logics for conceptual data modelling. In Jan Chomicki and Gunter Saake, editors, Logics for Databases and Information Systems, chapter 8. Kluwer, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jan Chomicki. Functional Deductive Databases: Query Processing in the Presence of Limited Function Symbols. PhD thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, January 1990. Also Laboratory for Computer Science Research Technical Report LCSR-TR-142.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jan Chomicki and Tomasz Imieliński. Finite Representation of Infinite Query Answers. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 18(2):181–223, June 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wenfei Fan and Jérôme Siméon. Integrity constraints for xml. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, pages 23–34, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin Fürer. Alternation and the Ackermann Case of the Decision Problem. L’Enseignement Math., 27:137–162, 1981.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Minoru Ito and Grant Weddell. Implication Problems for Functional Constraints on Databases Supporting Complex Objects. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 49(3):726–768, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vitaliy L. Khizder. Uniqueness Constraints in Object-Relational Databases and Description Logics. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vitaliy L. Khizder, David Toman, and Grant Weddell. Reasoning about Duplicate Elimination with Description Logic. Technical report, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 2000. (accepted to DOOD 2000).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    John W. Lloyd. Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer-Verlag, 2nd edition, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin F. van Bommel and Grant Weddell. Reasoning About Equations and Functional Dependencies on Complex Objects. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 6(3):455–469, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grant Weddell. A Theory of Functional Dependencies for Object Oriented Data Models. In International Conference on Deductive and Object-Oriented Databases, pages 165–184, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grant Weddell. Reasoning about Functional Dependencies Generalized for Semantic Data Models. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 17(1):32–64, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vitaliy L. Khizder
    • 1
  • David Toman
    • 1
  • Grant Weddell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations