[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Guarded-Based Disjunctive Tuple-Generating Dependencies

Published: 02 November 2016 Publication History

Abstract

We perform an in-depth complexity analysis of query answering under guarded-based classes of disjunctive tuple-generating dependencies (DTGDs), focusing on (unions of) conjunctive queries ((U)CQs). We show that the problem under investigation is very hard, namely 2ExpTime-complete, even for fixed sets of dependencies of a very restricted form. This is a surprising lower bound that demonstrates the enormous impact of disjunction on query answering under guarded-based tuple-generating dependencies, and also reveals the source of complexity for expressive logics such as the guarded fragment of first-order logic. We then proceed to investigate whether prominent subclasses of (U)CQs (i.e., queries of bounded treewidth and hypertree-width, and acyclic queries) have a positive impact on the complexity of the problem under consideration. We show that queries of bounded treewidth and bounded hypertree-width do not reduce the complexity of our problem, even if we focus on predicates of bounded arity or on fixed sets of DTGDs. Regarding acyclic queries, although the problem remains 2ExpTime-complete in general, in some relevant settings the complexity reduces to ExpTime-complete. Finally, with the aim of identifying tractable cases, we focus our attention on atomic queries. We show that atomic queries do not make the query answering problem easier under classes of guarded-based DTGDs that allow more than one atom to occur in the body of the dependencies. However, the complexity significantly decreases in the case of dependencies that can have only one atom in the body. In particular, we obtain a Ptime-completeness if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, and AC0-membership when the set of dependencies and the query are fixed. Interestingly, our results can be used as a generic tool for establishing complexity results for query answering under various description logics.

Supplementary Material

a27-bourhis-apndx.pdf (bourhis.zip)
Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Guarded-Based Disjunctive Tuple-Generating Dependencies

References

[1]
Serge Abiteboul, Richard Hull, and Victor Vianu. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley.
[2]
Mario Alviano, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, and Marco Manna. 2012. Disjunctive datalog with existential quantifiers: Semantics, decidability, and complexity issues. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12, 4--5, 701--718.
[3]
Hajnal Andréka, Johan van Benthem, and István Németi. 1998. Modal languages and bounded fragments of predicate logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 27, 217--274.
[4]
Alessandro Artale, Diego Calvanese, Roman Kontchakov, and Michael Zakharyaschev. 2009. The DL-lite family and relations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 36, 1--69.
[5]
Franz Baader, Diego Calvanese, Deborah L. McGuinness, Daniele Nardi, and Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.). 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
[6]
Jean-François Baget, Michel Leclère, Marie-Laure Mugnier, and Eric Salvat. 2011a. On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artificial Intelligence 175, 9--10, 1620--1654.
[7]
Jean-François Baget, Marie-Laure Mugnier, Sebastian Rudolph, and Michaël Thomazo. 2011b. Walking the complexity lines for generalized guarded existential rules. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 712--717.
[8]
Vince Bárány, Georg Gottlob, and Martin Otto. 2014. Querying the guarded fragment. Logical Methods in Computer Science 10, 2, 1--14.
[9]
Vince Bárány, Balder ten Cate, and Luc Segoufin. 2015. Guarded negation. Journal of the ACM 62, 3, 22.
[10]
Catriel Beeri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1981. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. 73--85.
[11]
Catriel Beeri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1984. A proof procedure for data dependencies. Journal of the ACM 31, 4, 718--741.
[12]
Pierre Bourhis, Michael Morak, and Andreas Pieris. 2013. The impact of disjunction on query answering under guarded-based existential rules. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 796--802.
[13]
Pierre Bourhis, Michael Morak, and Andreas Pieris. 2014. Towards efficient reasoning under guarded-based disjunctive existential rules. In Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, Part I. 99--110.
[14]
Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, and Michael Kifer. 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.
[15]
Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, and Michael Kifer. 2013. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 48, 115--174.
[16]
Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2012a. A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. Journal of Web Semantics, 57--83.
[17]
Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Bruno Marnette, and Andreas Pieris. 2010. Datalog+/-: A family of logical knowledge representation and query languages for new applications. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science. 228--242.
[18]
Andrea Calì, Georg Gottlob, and Andreas Pieris. 2012b. Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem. Artificial Intelligence 193, 87--128.
[19]
Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Riccardo Rosati. 2007. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-lite family. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39, 3, 385--429.
[20]
Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Domenico Lembo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Riccardo Rosati. 2013. Data complexity of query answering in description logics. Artificial Intelligence 195, 335--360.
[21]
Marco A. Casanova, Ronald Fagin, and Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1984. Inclusion dependencies and their interaction with functional dependencies. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 28, 1, 29--59.
[22]
Stefano Ceri, Georg Gottlob, and Letizia Tanca. 1990. Logic Programming and Databases. Springer.
[23]
Chandra Chekuri and Anand Rajaraman. 2000. Conjunctive query containment revisited. Theoretical Computer Science 239, 2, 211--229.
[24]
Bruno Courcelle. 1989. The monadic second-order logic of graphs, II: Infinite graphs of bounded width. Mathematical Systems Theory 21, 4, 187--221.
[25]
Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Boris Motik, Bijan Parsia, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Ulrike Sattler. 2008. OWL 2: The next step for OWL. Journal of Web Semantics 6, 4, 309--322.
[26]
Alin Deutsch, Alan Nash, and Jeff B. Remmel. 2008. The chase revisited. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. 149--158.
[27]
Alin Deutsch and Val Tannen. 2003. Reformulation of XML queries and constraints. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Database Theory. 225--241.
[28]
Francesco M. Donini, Maurizio Lenzerini, Daniele Nardi, and Andrea Schaerf. 1994. Deduction in concept languages: From subsumption to instance checking. Journal of Logic and Computation 4, 4, 423--452.
[29]
Thomas Eiter, Georg Gottlob, and Heikki Mannila. 1997. Disjunctive datalog. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 22, 3, 364--418.
[30]
Thomas Eiter, Magdalena Ortiz, and Mantas Simkus. 2012. Conjunctive query answering in the description logic SH using knots. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 78, 1, 47--85.
[31]
Ronald Fagin. 2007. Inverting schema mappings. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 32, 4, Article No. 25.
[32]
Ronald Fagin, Phokion G. Kolaitis, Renée J. Miller, and Lucian Popa. 2005. Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theoretical Computer Science 336, 1, 89--124.
[33]
Ronald Fagin, Phokion G. Kolaitis, Lucian Popa, and Wang Chiew Tan. 2008. Quasi-inverses of schema mappings. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 33, 2, Article No. 11.
[34]
Georg Gottlob, Nicola Leone, and Francesco Scarcello. 2002. Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 64, 3, 579--627.
[35]
Georg Gottlob, Marco Manna, Michael Morak, and Andreas Pieris. 2012. On the complexity of ontological reasoning under disjunctive existential rules. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science. 1--18.
[36]
Erich Grädel. 1999. On the restraining power of guards. Journal of Symbolic Logic 64, 4, 1719--1742.
[37]
David S. Johnson and Anthony C. Klug. 1984. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 28, 1, 167--189.
[38]
Markus Krötzsch and Sebastian Rudolph. 2011. Extending decidable existential rules by joining acyclicity and guardedness. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 963--968.
[39]
Nicola Leone, Marco Manna, Giorgio Terracina, and Pierfrancesco Veltri. 2012. Efficiently computable datalog∃ programs. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
[40]
Carsten Lutz. 2008. The complexity of conjunctive query answering in expressive description logics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning. 179--193.
[41]
Christos H. Papadimitriou. 1994. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley.
[42]
Sebastian Rudolph and Birte Glimm. 2010. Nominals, inverses, counting, and conjunctive queries or: Why infinity is your friend! Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 39, 429--481.
[43]
Andrea Schaerf. 1993. On the complexity of the instance checking problem in concept languages with existential quantification. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 2, 3, 265--278.
[44]
Manfred Schmidt-Schauß and Gert Smolka. 1991. Attributive concept descriptions with complements. Artificial Intelligence 48, 1, 1--26.
[45]
Frantisek Simancik, Yevgeny Kazakov, and Ian Horrocks. 2011. Consequence-based reasoning beyond horn ontologies. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1093--1098.
[46]
Michaël Thomazo, Jean-François Baget, Marie-Laure Mugnier, and Sebastian Rudolph. 2012. A generic querying algorithm for greedy sets of existential rules. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.
[47]
Jeffrey D. Ullman. 1987. Database theory: Past and future. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. 1--10.
[48]
Moshe Y. Vardi. 1982. The complexity of relational query languages. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. 137--146.
[49]
Moshe Y. Vardi. 1995. On the complexity of bounded-variable queries. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems. 266--276.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Do repeat yourselfProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/30(301-310)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
  • (2023)General acyclicity and cyclicity notions for the disjunctive skolem chaseProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25784(6372-6379)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2023
  • (2021)UCQ-Rewritings for disjunctive knowledge and queries with negated atomsSemantic Web10.3233/SW-20039912:4(685-709)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Database Systems
ACM Transactions on Database Systems  Volume 41, Issue 4
Invited Paper from EDBT 2015, Invited Paper from PODS 2015 and Regular Papers
December 2016
309 pages
ISSN:0362-5915
EISSN:1557-4644
DOI:10.1145/3014437
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 November 2016
Accepted: 01 July 2016
Revised: 01 July 2016
Received: 01 September 2015
Published in TODS Volume 41, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Query answering
  2. computational complexity
  3. conjunctive queries
  4. disjunction
  5. existential rules
  6. guardedness
  7. tuple-generating dependencies

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • Austrian Academy of Sciences under a DOC Fellowship
  • CPER Nord-Pas de Calais/FEDER DATA Advanced Data Science and Technologies
  • ANR Aggreg Project
  • Vienna University of Technology
  • Italian Ministry of University and Research
  • Austrian Science Fund (FWF)
  • INRIA Northern European Associate Team Integrated Linked Data
  • Italian Ministry of Economic Development
  • Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF)

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)16
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 11 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Do repeat yourselfProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning10.24963/kr.2023/30(301-310)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2023
  • (2023)General acyclicity and cyclicity notions for the disjunctive skolem chaseProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25784(6372-6379)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2023
  • (2021)UCQ-Rewritings for disjunctive knowledge and queries with negated atomsSemantic Web10.3233/SW-20039912:4(685-709)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021
  • (2021)Inference from Visible Information and Background KnowledgeACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/345291922:2(1-69)Online publication date: 21-Jun-2021
  • (2021)Stable Model Semantics for Guarded Existential Rules and Description Logics: Decidability and ComplexityJournal of the ACM10.1145/344750868:5(1-87)Online publication date: 22-Oct-2021
  • (2021)Guarded Ontology-Mediated QueriesHajnal Andréka and István Németi on Unity of Science10.1007/978-3-030-64187-0_2(27-52)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021
  • (2020)Dichotomies in Ontology-Mediated Querying with the Guarded FragmentACM Transactions on Computational Logic10.1145/337562821:3(1-47)Online publication date: 20-Feb-2020
  • (2020)Ontologies and Data Management: A Brief SurveyKI - Künstliche Intelligenz10.1007/s13218-020-00686-3Online publication date: 13-Aug-2020
  • (2020)Distributed Reasoning for Restricted Weakly-Linear Disjunctive Tuple-Generating DependenciesRules and Reasoning10.1007/978-3-030-57977-7_10(140-149)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Reasoning over Ontologies with DLVKnowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management10.1007/978-3-030-49559-6_6(114-136)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media