Acyclicity conditions and their application to query answering in description logics

Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 243-253

  Grau, Bernardo Cuenca ^a   Horrocks, Ian ^a   Krötzsch, Markus ^a   Kupke, Clemens ^a   Magka, Despoina ^a   Motik, Boris ^a   Wang, Zhe ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIRDS; DATA DESCRIPTION; ONTOLOGY;

ACYCLICITY; CONJUNCTIVE QUERIES (CQS); DESCRIPTION LOGIC; LOWER COMPLEXITY; PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS; QUERY ANSWERING; REASONERS; TERMINATION PROBLEMS;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 84893351590     PISSN: 23341025     EISSN: 23341033     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (40)

1. Abiteboul, S.; Hull, R.; and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley.
2. Baader, F.; Calvanese, D.; McGuinness, D.; Nardi, D.; and Patel-Schneider, P. F, eds. 2007. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
3. Baget, J.-F; Leclere, M.; Mugnier, M.-L.; and Salvat, E. 2011. On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artificial Intelligence 175(9-10):1620-1654.
4. Baget, J.-F; Mugnier, M.-L.; and Thomazo, M. 2011. Towards farsighted dependencies for existential rules. In Proc. RR, 30-45.
5. Beeri, C, and Vardi, M. Y. 1981. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proc. ICALP, 73-85.
6. Bishop, B., and Bojanov, S. 2011. Implementing OWL 2 RL and OWL 2 QL rule-sets for OWLIM. In Proc. OWLED, Volume 796 of CEUR WS Proceedings.
7. Broekstra, J.; Kampman, A.; and van Harmelen, F 2002. Sesame: A Generic Architecture for Storing and Querying RDF and RDF Schema. In Proc. ISWC, 54-68.
8. Calì, A.; Gottlob, G; Lukasiewicz, T.; Marnette, B.; and Pieris, A. 2010. Datalog+/-: A family of logical knowledge representation and query languages for new applications. In Proc. LICS, 228-242.
9. Calì, A.; Gottlob, G; and Pieris, A. 2010. Query answering under non-guarded rules in Datalog+/-. In Proc. RR, 1-17.
10. Calì, A.; Gottlob, G; and Pieris, A. 2011. New expressive languages for ontological query answering. In Proc. AAAI.
11. Calvanese, D.; De Giacomo, G; Lembo, D.; Lenzerini, M.; and Rosati, R. 2007. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J. Automated Reasoning 39(3):385-429.
12. Carroll, J. J.; Dickinson, I.; Dollin, C; Reynolds, D.; Seaborne, A.; and Wilkinson, K. 2004. Jena: Implementing the Semantic Web Recommendations. In Proc. www-Alternate Track, 74-83.
13. Cuenca Grau, B.; Horrocks, I.; Motik, B.; Parsia, B.; Patel-Schneider, P.; and Sattler, U. 2008. OWL 2: The next step for OWL. J. Web Semantics 6(4):309-322.
14. Dantsin, E.; Eiter, T.; Gottlob, G; and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv. 33(3):374-425.
15. Demri, S., and de Nivelle, H. 2005. Deciding Regular Grammar Logics with Converse Through First-Order Logic. J. Logic, Language and Information 14(3):289-329.
16. Deutsch, A.; Nash, A.; and Remmel, J. B. 2008. The chase revisited. In Proc. PODS, 149-158.
17. Fagin, R.; Kolaitis, P. G.; Miller, R. J.; and Popa, L. 2005. Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theoretical Computer Science 336(1):89-124.
18. Gardiner, T.; Tsarkov, D.; and Horrocks, I. 2006. Framework for an automated comparison of description logic reasoners. In Proc. ISWC, 654-667.
19. Glimm, B.; Lutz, C.; Horrocks, I.; and Sattler, U. 2008. Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 31:157-204.
20. Horrocks, I., and Patel-Schneider, P. F. 2004. A proposal for an OWL rules language. In Proc. WWW, 723-731.
21. Hustadt, U.; Motik, B.; and Sattler, U. 2005. Data complexity of reasoning in very expressive description logics. In Proc. IJCAI, 466-471.
22. Johnson, D. S., and Klug, A. C. 1984. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 28(1):167-189.
23. Kiryakov, A.; Ognyanov, D.; and Manov, D. 2005. OWLIM: A pragmatic semantic repository for OWL. In WISE Workshops, 182-192.
24. Kontchakov, R.; Lutz, C.; Toman, D.; Wolter, F.; and Za-kharyaschev, M. 2011. The combined approach to ontology-based data access. In Proc. IJCAI, 2656-2661.
25. Krötzsch, M., and Rudolph, S. 2011. Extending decidable existential rules by joining acyclicity and guardedness. In Proc. IJCAI, 963-968.
26. Krötzsch, M.; Rudolph, S.; and Hitzler, P. 2007. Conjunctive queries for a tractable fragment of OWL 1.1. In Proc. ISWC, 310-323.
27. Krötzsch, M.; Rudolph, S.; and Hitzler, P. 2012. Complexities of Horn description logics. ACM Trans. Comp. Log. To appear.
28. Kutz, O.; Horrocks, I.; and Sattler, U. 2006. The Even More Irresistible SROIQ. In Proc. KR, 68-78.
29. Lutz, C.; Toman, D.; and Wolter, F. 2009. Conjunctive query answering in the description logic EL using a relational database system. In Proc. IJCAI.
30. Maier, D.; Mendelzon, A. O.; and Sagiv, Y. 1979. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 4(4):455-469.
31. Marnette, B. 2009. Generalized schema-mappings: from termination to tractability. In Proc. PODS, 13-22.
32. Meditskos, G., and Bassiliades, N. 2008. Combining a DL reasoner and a rule engine for improving entailment-based OWL reasoning. In Proc. ISWC, 277-292.
33. Meier, M.; Schmidt, M.; and Lausen, G. 2009. On chase termination beyond stratification. Proc. VLDB 2(1):970-981.
34. Motik, B.; Shearer, R.; and Horrocks, I. 2009. Hypertableau reasoning for description logics. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 36:165-228.
35. Ortiz, M.; Calvanese, D.; and Eiter, T. 2008. Data complexity of query answering in expressive description logics via tableaux. J. Automated Reasoning 41(1):61-98.
36. Ortiz, M.; Rudolph, S.; and Simkus, M. 2011. Query answering in the Horn fragments of the description logics SHOIQ and SROIQ. In Proc. IJCAI, 1039-1044.
37. Pérez-Urbina, H.; Motik, B.; and Horrocks, I. 2010. Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints. J. Applied Logic 8(2):186-209.
38. Rudolph, S., and Glimm, B. 2010. Nominals, inverses, counting, and conjunctive queries or: Why infinity is your friend!. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 39:429-481.
39. Spezzano, F., and Greco, S. 2010. Chase termination: A constraints rewriting approach. Proc. VLDB 3(1):93-104.
40. Wu, Z.; Eadon, G.; Das, S.; Chong, E. I.; Kolovski, V.; Annamalai, M.; and Srinivasan, J. 2008. Implementing an inference engine for RDFS/OWL constructs and user-defined rules in Oracle. In Proc. ICDE, 1239-1248.