Description Logics and Their Relationships with Databases

  • Maurizio Lenzerini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1540)

Abstract

Description Logics are logics for representing and reasoning about classes of objects and their relationships. They can be seen as successors of semantic networks and frame systems, and have been investigated for more than a decade under different points of view, in particular, expressive power and computational complexity of reasoning. In this short paper, we introduce Description Logics, we compare Description Logics with Database models, and then discuss how Description Logics can be used for several tasks related to data management, in particular information integration, and semi-structured data modeling.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Serge Abiteboul. Querying semi-structured data. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT-97), pages 1–18, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Serge Abiteboul, Dallan Quass, Jason McHugh, Jennifer Widom, and Janet L.Wiener. The Lorel query language for semistructured data International Journalon Digital Libraries 1(1) 68–881997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franz Baader. A formal definition for the expressive power of terminological knowledge representation languages Journal of Logic and Computation 6:33–54 1996.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Franz Baader and Bernhard Hollunder. A terminological knowledge representation system with complete inference algorithm. In Proc. of the Workshop on Processing Declarative Knowledge (PDK-91), number 567 in Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence, pages 67–86. Springer-Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Catriel Beeri, Alon Y. Levy, and Marie-Christine Rousset. Rewriting queries using views in description logics. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS-97), pages 99–108, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alexander Borgida. Description logics in data management. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 7(5):671–682, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alexander Borgida. On the relative expressiveness of description logics and predicate logics Artificial Intelligence, 82:353–367 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alexander Borgida, Ronald J. Brachman, Deborah L. McGuinness, and Lori Alperin Resnick. CLASSIC: A structural data model for objects. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 59–67, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ronald J. Brachman and Hector J. Levesque. Readings in Knowledge Representation. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1985.MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ronald J. Brachman, Victoria Pigman Gilbert, and Hector J. Levesque. An essential hybrid reasoning system: Knowledge and symbol level accounts in KRYPTON. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence(IJCAI-85), pages 532–539, Los Angeles, 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ronald J. Brachman and James G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system Cognitive Science 9(2):171–216 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peter Buneman, Susan Davidson, Mary Fernandez, and Dan Suciu. Adding structure to unstructured data. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT-97), pages 336–350, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marco Cadoli, Luigi Palopoli, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Datalog and description logics: Expressive power. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Database Programming Languages (DBPL-97), 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diego Calvanese. Finite model reasoning in description logics. In Luigia C. Aiello, John Doyle, and Stuart C. Shapiro, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), pages 292–303. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. On the decidabilityof query containment under constraints. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS-98), pages 149–158, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. Representing andreasoning on the structure of documents: A description logics approach. Submitted for publication, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, and Maurizio Lenzerini. What can knowledge representation do for semi-structured data? In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), pages 205–210, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Riccardo Rosati. Description logic framework for information integration. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98), pages 2–13, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. A unified framework forclass based representation formalisms. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, and P. Torasso, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), pages 109–120, Bonn, 1994. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diego Calvanese, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Daniele Nardi. Description logics for conceptual data modeling. In Jan Chomicki and Günter Saake editors, Logics for Databases and Information Systems, pages 229–264. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiziana Catarci and Maurizio Lenzerini. Representing and using interschema knowledge in cooperative information systems. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(4):375–398, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christine Collet, Michael N. Huhns, and Wei-Min Shen. Resource integration using a large knowledge base in Carnot. IEEE Computer, 24(12):55–62, 1991.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Werner Nutt. The complexity of concept languages. Information and Computation 134:1–58 1997.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Andrea Schaerf. Reasoning in description logics. In Gerhard Brewka, editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, pages 193–238. CSLI Publications, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mary F. Fernandez, Daniela Florescu, Jaewoo Kang, Alon Y. Levy, and Dan Suciu Catching the boat with strudel: Experiences with a web-site management system. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pages 414–425, 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thomas S. Kaczmarek, Raymond Bates, and Gabriel Robins. Recent developments in NIKL. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence(AAAI-86), pages 978–985, 1986.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomas Kirk, Alon Y. Levy, Yehoshua Sagiv, and Divesh Srivastava. The Information Manifold. In Proceedings of the AAAI 1995 Spring Symp. on Information Gathering from Heterogeneous, Distributed Enviroments, pages 85–91, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fritz Lehmann. Semantic networks. In Fritz Lehmann, editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, pages 1–50. Pergamon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alon Y. Levy and Marie-Christine Rousset. CARIN: A representation language combining Horn rules and description logics. In Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-96), pages 323–327, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Robert MacGregor and R. Bates. The Loom knowledge representation language. Technical Report ISI/RS-87-188, University of Southern California, Information Science Institute, Marina del Rey, Cal., 1987.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marvin Minsky. A framework for representing knowledge. In J. Haugeland, editor, Mind Design. The MIT Press, 1981. A longer version appeared in The Psychology of Computer Vision (1975). Republished in [9].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Joachim Quantz and Carsten Kindermann. Implementation of the BACK system version 4. Technical Report KIT-Report 78, FB Informatik, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Charles (ed) Rich. Special issue on implemented knowledge representation and reasoning systems. SIGART Bulletin, 2(3), 1991.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jeffrey D. Ullman. Information integration using logical views. In Proceedings ofthe Sixth International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT-97), number 1186 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 19–40. Springer-Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    William A. Woods and James G. Schmolze. The KL-ONE family. In F. W.Lehmann editor, Semantic Networks in Artificial Intelligence, pages 133–178. Pergamon Press, 1992. Published as a special issue of Computers & Mathematics with Applications, Volume 23, Number 2–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Lenzerini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly

Personalised recommendations