Advertisement

An Update on Query Answering with Restricted Forms of Negation

  • Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto
  • Yazmín Angélica Ibáñez-García
  • Roman Kontchakov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7497)

Abstract

One of the most prominent applications of description logic ontologies is their use for accessing data. In this setting, ontologies provide an abstract conceptual layer of the data schema, and queries over the ontology are then used to access the data. In this paper we focus on extensions of conjunctive queries (CQs) and unions of conjunctive queries (UCQs) with restricted forms of negations such as inequality and safe negation. In particular, we consider ontologies based on members of the DL-Lite family. We show that by extending UCQs with any form of negated atoms, the problem of query answering becomes undecidable even when considering ontologies expressed in the core fragment of DL-Lite. On the other hand, we show that answering CQs with inequalities is decidable for ontologies expressed in DL-\(Lite^{\mathcal{H}}_{core}\). To this end, we provide an algorithm matching the known coNP lower bound on data complexity. Furthermore, we identify a setting in which conjunctive query answering with inequalities is tractable. We regain tractability by means of syntactic restrictions on the queries, but keeping the expressiveness of the ontology.

Keywords

Description Logic Canonical Model Restrict Form Conjunctive Query Tile Type 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abiteboul, S., Duschka, O.M.: Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 254–263. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abiteboul, S., Duschka, O.M.: Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. Tech. Rep. Gemo Report 383, INRIA Saclay (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arenas, M., Barceló, P., Reutter, J.L.: Query languages for data exchange: Beyond unions of conjunctive queries. Theory Comput. Syst. 49(2), 489–564 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: A proof procedure for data dependencies. J. ACM 31(4), 718–741 (1984)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bienvenu, M., Ortiz, M., Simkus, M.: Answering expressive path queries over lightweight DL knowledge bases. In: Proc. of DL. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 846 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Doherty, P., Mylopoulos, J., Welty, C.A. (eds.) Proc. of KR 2006, pp. 260–270. AAAI Press (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In: Mendelzon, A.O., Paredaens, J. (eds.) Proc. of PODS, pp. 149–158. ACM Press (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ten Cate, B., Chiticariu, L., Kolaitis, P.G., Tan, W.C.: Laconic schema mappings: Computing the core with SQL queries. PVLDB 2(1), 1006–1017 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.B.: The chase revisited. In: Lenzerini, M., Lembo, D. (eds.) Proc. of PODS. pp. 149–158. ACM Press (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gheerbrant, A., Libkin, L., Tan, T.: On the complexity of query answering over incomplete XML documents. In: Deutsch, A. (ed.) Proc. of ICDT, pp. 169–181. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harel, D.: Effective transformations on infinite trees, with applications to high undecidability, dominoes, and fairness. J. ACM 33(1), 224–248 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klug, A.: On conjunctive queries containing inequalities. J. ACM 35(1), 146–160 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of KR 2010. AAAI Press (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Madry, A.: Data exchange: On the complexity of answering queries with inequalities. Inf. Process. Lett. 94(6), 253–257 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosati, R.: On the decidability and finite controllability of query processing in databases with incomplete information. In: Vansummeren, S. (ed.) Proc. of PODS, pp. 356–365. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosati, R.: The Limits of Querying Ontologies. In: Schwentick, T., Suciu, D. (eds.) ICDT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4353, pp. 164–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Víctor Gutiérrez-Basulto
    • 1
  • Yazmín Angélica Ibáñez-García
    • 2
  • Roman Kontchakov
    • 3
  1. 1.Fachbereich Mathematik und InformatikUniversität BremenGermany
  2. 2.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoItaly
  3. 3.Department of CS and Information SystemsBirkbeck CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations