Data complexity of answering unions of conjunctive queries in SHIQ

CEUR Workshop Proceedings

Volumn 189, Issue , 2006, Pages 62-73

  Ortiz, Magdalena ^a,b   Calvanese, Diego ^a   Eiter, Thomas ^b  

^a FREE UNIVERSITY OF BOZEN BOLZANO   (Italy)

^b VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA DESCRIPTION; FORMAL LANGUAGES; FORMAL LOGIC; ONTOLOGY;

CONJUNCTIVE QUERIES; FINITE MODEL PROPERTY; INFERENCE TECHNIQUES; KNOWLEDGE BASIS; NUMBER RESTRICTIONS; QUERY ANSWERING; TECHNICAL CHALLENGES; TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION;

QUERY LANGUAGES;

EID: 84872960830     PISSN: 16130073     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (26)

1. S. Abiteboul and O. Duschka. Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. In Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'98), pages 254-265, 1998.
2. F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
3. F. Baader and U. Sattler. An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica, 69(1):5-40, 2001.
4. A. Borgida and R. J. Brachman. Conceptual modeling with description logics. In Baader et al. [2], chapter 10, pages 349-372.
5. D. Calvanese and G. De Giacomo. Expressive description logics. In Baader et al. [2], chapter 5, pages 178-218.
6. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. DL-Lite: Tractable description logics for ontologies. In Proc. of the 20th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), pages 602-607, 2005.
7. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. 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.
8. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. On the decidability of query containment under constraints. In Proc. of the 17th ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS'98), pages 149-158, 1998.
9. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Answering queries using views over description logics knowledge bases. In Proc. of the 17th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pages 386-391, 2000.
10. F. M. Donini, M. Lenzerini, D. Nardi, and A. Schaerf. Deduction in concept languages: From subsumption to instance checking. J. of Logic and Computation, 4(4):423-452, 1994.
11. J. Heflin and J. Hendler. A portrait of the Semantic Web in action. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 16(2):54-59, 2001.
12. I. Horrocks, P. F. Patel-Schneider, and F. van Harmelen. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. of Web Semantics, 1(1):7-26, 2003.
13. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A description logic with transitive and inverse roles and role hierarchies. J. of Logic and Computation, 9(3):385-410, 1999.
14. I. Horrocks and U. Sattler. A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 448-453, 2005.
15. I. Horrocks, U. Sattler, and S. Tobies. Reasoning with individuals for the description logic SHIQ. In D. McAllester, editor, Proc. of the 17th Int. Conf. on Automated Deduction (CADE 2000), volume 1831 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 482-496. Springer, 2000.
16. I. Horrocks and S. Tessaris. A conjunctive query language for description logic ABoxes. In Proc. of the 17th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pages 399-404, 2000.
17. U. Hustadt, B. Motik, and U. Sattler. A decomposition rule for decision procedures by resolution-based calculi. In Proc. of the 11th Int. Conf. on Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence and Reasoning (LPAR 2004), pages 21-35, 2004.
18. U. Hustadt, B. Motik, and U. Sattler. Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In Proc. of the 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2005), pages 466-471, 2005.
19. M. Lenzerini. Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In Proc. of the 21st ACM SIGACT SIGMOD SIGART Symp. on Principles of Database Systems (PODS 2002), pages 233-246, 2002.
20. A. Y. Levy and M.-C. Rousset. Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence, 104(1-2):165-209, 1998.
21. M. M. Ortiz de la Fuente, D. Calvanese, and T. Eiter. Data complexity of answering unions of conjunctive queries in SHIQ. Technical report, Faculty of Computer Science, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Mar. 2006. Available at http://www.inf.unibz.it/~calvanese/papers/orti-calv-eite-TR-2006-03.pdf%.
22. P. Patel-Schneider, P. Hayes, and I. Horrocks. OWL Web Ontology Language semantics and abstract syntax - W3C recommendation. Technical report, World Wide Web Consortium, Feb. 2004. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/.
23. A. Schaerf. On the complexity of the instance checking problem in concept languages with existential quantification. J. of Intelligent Information Systems, 2:265-278, 1993.
24. A. Schaerf. Query Answering in Concept-Based Knowledge Representation Systems: Algorithms, Complexity, and Semantic Issues. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica e Sistemistica, Universit̀a di Roma "La Sapienza", 1994.
25. S. Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, LuFG Theoretical Computer Science, RWTHAachen, Germany, 2001.
26. M. Y. Vardi. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proc. of the 14th ACM SIGACT Symp. on Theory of Computing (STOC'82), pages 137-146, 1982.