Combining decidability paradigms for existential rules

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Volumn 13, Issue 4-5, 2013, Pages 877-892

  Gottlob, Georg ^a   Manna, Marco ^b   Pieris, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALABRIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

complexity; datalog extensions; decidability; guardedness; query answering; stickiness

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

COMPLEXITY; DATALOG; GUARDEDNESS; QUERY ANSWERING; STICKINESS;

COMPUTABILITY AND DECIDABILITY;

EID: 84980054121     PISSN: 14710684     EISSN: 14753081     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1471068413000550     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Alviano, M., Faber, W., Leone, N. and Manna, M. 2012. Disjunctive datalog with existential quantifiers: Semantics, decidability, and complexity issues. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12, 4-5, 701-718.
2. Andreka, H., van Benthem, J. and Nemeti, I. 1998. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217-274.
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. Barany, V., Gottlob, G. and Otto, M. 2010. Querying the guarded fragment. In Proceedings of the 25th IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, 1-10.
5. Beeri, C. and Vardi, M. Y. 1981. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, 73-85.
6. Bourhis, P., Morak, M. and Pieris, A. 2013. The impact of disjunction on query answering under guarded-based existential rules. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, To appear.
7. Cal?, A., Gottlob, G. and Kifer, M. 2008. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 70-80.
8. Cal?, A., Gottlob, G. and Lukasiewicz, T. 2012. A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics 14, 57-83.
9. Cal?, A., Gottlob, G. and Pieris, A. 2012. Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem. Artificial Intelligence 193, 87-128.
10. Ceri, S., Gottlob, G. and Tanca, L. 1990. Logic Programming and Databases. Springer.
11. Chandra, A. K. and Merlin, P. M. 1977. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 77-90.
12. Deutsch, A., Nash, A. and Remmel, J. B. 2008. The chase revisisted. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, 149-158.
13. 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.
14. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A. and Schaub, T. 2007. Conflict-driven answer set solving. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 386-392.
15. Gogacz, T. and Marcinkowski, J. 2013. Converging to the chase - a tool for finite controllability. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, To appear.
16. Gottlob, G. and Koch, C. 2004. Monadic Datalog and the expressive power of languages for web information extraction. Journal of the ACM 51, 1, 74-113.
17. Gottlob, G., Manna, M., Morak, M. and Pieris, A. 2012. On the complexity of ontological reasoning under disjunctive existential rules. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, 1-18.
18. Hajiyev, E., Verbaere, M. and de Moor, O. 2006. codeQuest: Scalable source code queries with Datalog. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, 2-27.
19. Johnson, D. S. and Klug, A. C. 1984. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 28, 1, 167-189.
20. Krotzsch, M. and Rudolph, S. 2011. Extending decidable existential rules by joining acyclicity and guardedness. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 963-968.
21. Leone, N., Manna, M., Terracina, G. and Veltri, P. 2012. Efficiently computable Datalog? programs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
22. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S. and Scarcello, F. 2006. The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 7, 3, 499-562.
23. Lierler, Y. and Maratea, M. 2004. Cmodels-2: SAT-based answer set solver enhanced to non-tight programs. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 346-350.
24. Maier, D., Mendelzon, A. O. and Sagiv, Y. 1979. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4, 4, 455-469.
25. Marczak, W. R., Alvaro, P., Conway, N., Hellerstein, J. M. and Maier, D. 2012. Confluence analysis for distributed programs: A model-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of Datalog 2.0. 135-147.
26. Patel-Schneider, P. F. and Horrocks, I. 2007. A comparison of two modelling paradigms in the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 5, 4, 240-250.