Ontological Query Answering via Rewriting

  • Georg Gottlob
  • Giorgio Orsi
  • Andreas Pieris
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6909)


Ontological databases extend traditional databases with ontological constraints. This technology is crucial for many applications such as semantic data publishing and integration as well as model-driven database design. For many classes of ontological constraints, query answering can be solved via query rewriting. In particular, given a conjunctive query and a set of ontological constraints, the query is compiled into a first-order query, called the perfect rewriting, that encodes the intensional knowledge implied by the constraints. Then, for every database D, the answer is obtained by directly evaluating the perfect rewriting over D. Since first-order queries can be easily translated into SQL, ontological query answering can be delegated to traditional DBMSs. This allows us to utilize all the query optimization techniques available in the underlying DBMS. This paper surveys current approaches to rewriting-based query answering of ontological databases.


Description Logic Conjunctive Query Input Query Query Answering Existential Variable 
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.
    Ajtai, M., Gurevich, Y.: Datalog vs. first-order logic. In: Proc. of FOCS, pp. 142–147 (1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-Lite family and relations. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 36, 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baget, J.-F., Leclère, M., Mugnier, M.-L., Salvat, E.: On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. 175(9-10), 1620–1654 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beeri, C., Vardi, M.Y.: The implication problem for data dependencies. In: Even, S., Kariv, O. (eds.) ICALP 1981. LNCS, vol. 115, pp. 73–85. Springer, Heidelberg (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bishop, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Peikov, I., Tashev, Z., Velkov, R.: Owlim: A family of scalable semantic repositories. Semantic Web 2(1), 33–42 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cabibbo, L.: The expressive power of stratified logic programs with value invention. Inf. Comput. 147(1), 22–56 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Kifer, M.: Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 70–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Lukasiewicz, T.: A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 77–86 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Tractable query answering over conceptual schemata. In: Laender, A.H.F., Castano, S., Dayal, U., Casati, F., de Oliveira, J.P.M. (eds.) ER 2009. LNCS, vol. 5829, pp. 175–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Advanced processing for ontological queries. PVLDB 3(1), 554–565 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Query answering under expressive Entity-Relationship schemata. In: Parsons, J., Saeki, M., Shoval, P., Woo, C., Wand, Y. (eds.) ER 2010. LNCS, vol. 6412, pp. 347–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Query answering under non-guarded rules in Datalog±. In: Hitzler, P., Lukasiewicz, T. (eds.) RR 2010. LNCS, vol. 6333, pp. 1–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calì, A., Gottlob, G., Pieris, A.: Query rewriting under non-guarded rules. In: Proc. AMW (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calì, A., Lembo, D., Rosati, R.: Query rewriting and answering under constraints in data integration systems. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 16–21 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Calvanese, D., Giacomo, G.D., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In: Proc. of KR, pp. 260–270 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chong, E., Das, S., Eadon, G., Srinivasan, J.: An efficient SQL-based RDF querying scheme. In: Proc. of the 31th Intl Conf. on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB), pp. 1216–1227 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deutsch, A., Nash, A., Remmel, J.B.: The chase revisisted. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 149–158 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336(1), 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaifman, H., Mairson, H.G., Sagiv, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Undecidable optimization problems for database logic programs. J. ACM 40(3), 683–713 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gottlob, G., Orsi, G., Pieris, A.: Ontological queries: Rewriting and optimization. In: Proc. of ICDE, pp. 2–13 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gottlob, G., Schwentick, T.: Rewriting ontological queries into small non-recursive Datalog programs. In: Proc. of DL (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson, D.S., Klug, A.C.: Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 28(1), 167–189 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joiner, W.H.: Resolution strategies as decision procedures. J. ACM 23, 398–417 (1976)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite. In: Proc. of KR (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maier, D., Mendelzon, A.O., Sagiv, Y.: Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4(4), 455–469 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orsi, G., Pieris, A.: Optimizing query answering under ontological constraints. In: PVLDB (2011) (in press)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Papadimitriou, C.H.: Computational complexity. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pérez-Urbina, H., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints. Journal of Applied Logic 8(2), 151–232 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosati, R., Almatelli, A.: Improving query answering over DL-Lite ontologies. In: Proc. KR (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vardi, M.Y.: On the complexity of bounded-variable queries. In: Proc. of PODS, pp. 266–276 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Gottlob
    • 1
  • Giorgio Orsi
    • 2
  • Andreas Pieris
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OxfordUK
  2. 2.Institute for the Future of ComputingUniversity of OxfordUK

Personalised recommendations