Reasoning over Extended ER Models

  • A. Artale
  • D. Calvanese
  • R. Kontchakov
  • V. Ryzhikov
  • M. Zakharyaschev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4801)


We investigate the computational complexity of reasoning over various fragments of the Extended Entity-Relationship (EER) language, which includes a number of constructs: isa between entities and relationships, disjointness and covering of entities and relationships, cardinality constraints for entities in relationships and their refinements as well as multiplicity constraints for attributes. We extend the known ExpTime-completeness result for UML class diagrams [5] and show that reasoning over EER diagrams with isa between relationships is ExpTime-complete even without relationship covering. Surprisingly, reasoning becomes NP-complete when we drop isa between relationships (while still allowing all types of constraints on entities). If we further omit disjointness and covering over entities, reasoning becomes polynomial. Our lower complexity bound results are proved by direct reductions, while the upper bounds follow from the correspondences with expressive variants of the description logic DL-Lite, which we establish in this paper. These correspondences also show the usefulness of DL-Lite as a language for reasoning over conceptual models and ontologies.


Description Logic Conceptual Schema Cardinality Constraint Reachability Problem Reasoning Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: DL-Lite in the light of first-order logic. In: Proc. of the 22nd Nat.Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batini, C., Ceri, S., Navathe, S.B.: Conceptual Database Design, an Entity-Relationship Approach. Benjamin and Cummings Publ. Co. (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D.L., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Stein, L.A.: OWL Web Ontology Language reference. W3C Recommendation, Available at (February 2004),
  5. 5.
    Berardi, G.D., Calvanese, D., Giacomo, D.: Reasoning on UML class diagrams. Artificial Intelligence 168(1–2), 70–118 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, G.D., Giacomo, D.: Expressive description logics. In: Baader. F., et al. (eds.) [2], ch.5, pp. 178–218 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In: Proc. of the 20th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pp. 602–607 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), pp. 260–270 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M.: On the interaction between ISA and cardinality constraints. In: Proc. of the 10th IEEE Int. Conf. on Data Engineering (ICDE’94), pp. 204–213. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D.: Unifying class-based representation formalisms. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 11, 199–240 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chagrov, A., Zakharyaschev, M.: Modal Logic. Oxford Logic Guides 35 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Di Battista, G., Lenzerini, M.: Deductive entity-relationship modeling. IEEE Trans. on Knowledge and Data Engineering 5(3), 439–450 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ElMasri, R.A., Navathe, S.B.: Fundamentals of Database Systems, 5th edn. Addison Wesley Publ.Co. (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kozen, D.: Theory of Computation. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lenzerini, M., Nobili, P.: On the satisfiability of dependency constraints in entity-relationship schemata. Information Systems 15(4), 453–461 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Artale
    • 1
  • D. Calvanese
    • 1
  • R. Kontchakov
    • 2
  • V. Ryzhikov
    • 1
  • M. Zakharyaschev
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, I-39100 BolzanoItaly
  2. 2.School of Comp. Science and Inf. Sys., Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HXUK

Personalised recommendations