Controlled English Ontology-Based Data Access

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5972)


As it is well-known, querying and managing structured data in natural language is a challenging task due to its ambiguity (syntactic and semantic) and its expressiveness. On the other hand, querying, e.g., a relational database or an ontology-based data access system is a well-defined and unambigous task, namely, the task of evaluating a formal query (e.g., an SQL query) of a limited expressiveness over such database. However these formal query languages may be difficult to learn and use for the casual user and ambiguity may compromise the interface. To bridge this gap, the use of controlled language interfaces has been proposed. As a measure of their efficiency for data access, we propose to consider data complexity, which is the complexity of query evaluation measured in the size of the data. We study a familiy of controlled languages that express several fragments of OWL, ranging from tractable (LogSpace and PTime) to intractable (coNP-hard) in data complexity, singling out which constructs give rise to each computational property.


Data Complexity Description Logic Conjunctive Query Computational Property Ontology Language 
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.
    Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Androutsopoulos, I., Ritchie, G.D., Thanisch, P.: Natural language interfaces to databases - An introduction. Journal of Natural Language Engineering 1(1), 29–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P., McGuinness, D.: The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barwise, J., Cooper, R.: Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4(2), 159–219 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bernardi, R., Calvanese, D., Thorne, C.: Lite natural language. In: Proc. of the 7th Int. Workshop on Computational Semantics, IWCS-7 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernstein, A., Kaufman, E., Göring, A., Kiefer, C.: Querying ontologies: A controlled English interface for end-users. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Semantic Web Conf. ISWC 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blum, A.: Microsoft English Query 7.5. automatic extraction of semantics from relational databases and OLAP cubes. In: Proc. of the 25th Int. Conf. on Very Large Databases, VLDB 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M.: On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In: Proc. of the 17th ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 1998), pp. 149–158 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carpenter, B.: Type-Logical Semantics. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fuchs, N.E., Kaljurand, K.: Mapping Attempto Controlled English to OWL-DL. In: Demos and Posters of the 3rd European Semantic Web Conf. (ESWC 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fuchs, N.E., Kaljurand, K., Schneider, G.: Attempto Controlled English meets the challenges of knowledge representation, reasoning, interoperability and user interfaces. In: Proc. of the 19th Int. Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conf. FLAIRS 2006 (2005),
  13. 13.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From \(\mathcal{SHIQ}\) and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal on Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jurafsky, D., Martin, J.: Speech and Language Processing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaljurand, K.: Attempto Controlled English as a Semantic Web Language. PhD thesis, University of Tartu (2007),
  16. 16.
    Kaljurand, K., Fuchs, N.E.: Verbalizing OWL in Attempto Controlled English. In: Proc. of 3rd OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop, OWLED 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lutz, C.: The complexity of conjunctive query answering in expressive description logics. In: Armando, A., Baumgartner, P., Dowek, G. (eds.) IJCAR 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5195, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lutz, C., Krisnadhi, A.: Data complexity in the \(\mathcal{EL}\) family of DLs. In: Proc. of the 20th Int. Workshop on Description Logics, DL 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mador-Haim, S., Winter, Y., Braun, A.: Controlled language for geographical information system queries. In: Proc. of Inference in Computational Semantics 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montague, R.: Universal grammar. Theoria 36(3), 373–398 (1970)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ortiz, M., Calvanese, D., Eiter, T.: Data complexity of query answering in expressive description logics. Journal of Automated Reasoning 41(1), 61–98 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Papadimitrou, C.: Computational Complexity. Addison Wesley - Longman, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pratt, I., Third, A.: More fragments of language. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 47(2), 151–177 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaerf, A.: On the complexity of the instance checking problem in concept languages with existential quantification. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2(3), 265–278 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwitter, R.: Creating and querying linguistically motivated ontologies. In: Proc. of the 2008 Knowledge Representation Workshop (KROW 2008) (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwitter, R., Kaljurand, K., Cregan, A., Dolbear, C., Hart, G.: A comparison of three controlled natural languages for OWL 1.1. In: Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2008), Washington (April 2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schwitter, R., Ljungberg, A., Hood, D.: ECOLE - A look-ahead editor for a controlled language. In: Proc. of the 8th Int. Workshop of the European Association for Machine Translation and the 4th Controlled Language Applications Workshop (EAMT/CLAW 2003) (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwitter, R., Tilbrook, M.: Let’s talk in description logic via controlled language. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Logic and Engineering of Natural Language Semantics (LENLS 2006) (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slavkovik, M.: Deep analysis for an interactive question answering system. Master’s thesis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sowa, J.: Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical and Computational Foundations. Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sowa, J.: Common Logic Controlled English, draft (2004),
  32. 32.
    Thorne, C., Calvanese, D.: The data complexity of the syllogistic fragments of english. In: Proc. of the 2009 Amsterdam Colloquium, AC 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vardi, M.: The complexity of relational query languages. In: Proc. of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 1982 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KRDB Research CentreFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations