The Complexity of Reasoning with Cardinality Restrictions and Nominals in Expressive Description Logics

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Volumn 12, Issue , 2000, Pages 199-

  Tobies, Stephan ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14344269579     PISSN: 10769757     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1613/jair.705     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Aiello, L. C., Doyle, J., & Shapiro, S. C. (Eds.)., Proceedings of KR'96 (1996). Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (KR '96). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, California.
2. Areces, C., Blackburn, P., & Marx, M. (1999). A road-map on complexity for hybrid logics. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Science Logic (CSL-99), LNCS 1683, pp. 307-321. Springer-Verlag.
3. Baader, F., Buchheit, M., & Hollunder, B. (1996). Cardinality restrictions on concepts. Artificial Intelligence, 88(1-2), 195-213.
4. Baader, F., & Sattler, U. (1999). Expressive number restrictions in description logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(3), 319-350.
5. Berger, R. (1966). The undecidability of the dominoe problem. Memoirs of the American Mathematical Society, 66.
6. Blackburn, P., & Seligman, J. (1996). Hybrid languages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 5(4), 251-272.
7. Börger, E., Grädel, E., & Gurevich, Y. (1997). The Classical Decision Problem. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
8. Borgida, A. (1996). On the relative expressiveness of description logics and first order logics. Artificial Intelligence, 82, 353-367.
9. Borgida, A., & Patel-Schneider, P. F. (1994). A semantic and complete algorithm for subsumption in the classic description logic. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1, 277-308.
10. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., & Rosati, R. (1998a). Source integration in data warehousing. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA-98), pp. 192-197. IEEE Computer Society Press.
11. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., & Lenzerini, M. (1998b). On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS-98).
12. Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., & Rosati, R. (1998c). Description logic framework for information integration. In Proc. of the 6th Int. Conf. on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98), pp. 2-13.
13. De Giacomo, G. (1995). Decidability of Class-Based Knowledge Representation Formalisms. Ph.D. thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Univ. di Roma "La Sapienza".
14. De Giacomo, G., & Lenzerini, M. (1996). TBox and ABox reasoning in expressive description logics.. In Aiello et al. (Aiello et al., 1996), pp. 316-327.
15. Donini, F. M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., & Schaerf, A. (1996). Reasoning in description logics. In Brewka, G. (Ed.), Foundation of Knowledge Representation, pp. 191-236. CSLI-Publications.
16. Fine, K. (1972). In so many possible worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 13, 516-520.
17. Gargov, G., & Goranko, V. (1993). Modal logic with names. J. of Philosophical Logic, 22, 607-636.
18. Grädel, E., Otto, M., & Rosen, E. (1997). Two-variable logic with counting is decidable. In Proceedings, Twelth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 306-317 Warsaw, Poland. IEEE Computer Society Press.
19. Halpern, J. Y., & Moses, Y. (1992). A guide to completeness and complexity for model logics of knowledge and belief. Artificial Intelligence, 54(3), 319-379.
20. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., & Tobies, S. (1999). Practical reasoning for expressive description logics. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR'99), pp. 161-180.
21. Pacholski, L., Szwast, W., & Tendera, L. (1997). Complexity of two-variable logic with counting. In Proceedings, Twelth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 318-327 Warsaw, Poland. IEEE Computer Society Press.
22. Pratt, V. R. (1979). Models of program logics. In Proceedings of the Twentieth IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 115-122. IEEE.
23. Schmidt-Schauß, M., & Smolka, G. (1991). Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence, 48, 1-26.
24. Spaan, E. (1993). Complexity of Modal Logics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.
25. 2. In Flum, J., & Rodríguez-Artalejo, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the European Association for Computer Science Logic (CSL-99), LNCS 1683, pp. 292-306. Springer-Verlag.
26. Tobies, S. (2000). PSPACE reasoning for graded modal logics. Journal of Logic and Computation. To appear.
27. Vardi, M. Y. (1997). Why is modal logic so robustly decidable?. In Descriptive Complexity and Finite Models: Proceedings of a DIMACS Workshop, January 14-17, 1996, No. 31 in DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 149-184. American Math. Society.
28. Wang, H. (1963). Dominoes and the AEA case of the Decision Problem. Bell Syst. Tech. J., 40, 1-41.
29. Woods, W. A., & Schmolze, J. G. (1992). The KL-ONE family. Computers and Mathematics with Applications - Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence, 23(2-5), 133-177.