skip to main content
10.1145/3196959.3196963acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article

Containment for Rule-Based Ontology-Mediated Queries

Published:27 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many efforts have been dedicated to identifying restrictions on ontologies expressed as tuple-generating dependencies (tgds), a.k.a. existential rules, that lead to the decidability of answering ontology-mediated queries (OMQs). This has given rise to three families of formalisms: guarded, non-recursive, and sticky sets of tgds. We study the containment problem for OMQs expressed in such formalisms, which is a key ingredient for solving static analysis tasks associated with them. Our main contribution is the development of specially tailored techniques for OMQ containment under the classes of tgds stated above. This enables us to obtain sharp complexity bounds for the problems at hand.

References

  1. Marcelo Arenas, Richard Hull, Wim Martens, Tova Milo, and Thomas Schwentick. 2016. Foundations of Data Management (Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 16151). Dagstuhl Reports Vol. 6, 4 (2016), 39--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Jean-Franccois Baget, Michel Leclère, Marie-Laure Mugnier, and Eric Salvat. 2011. On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line. Artif. Intell. Vol. 175, 9--10 (2011), 1620--1654. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Vince Bárány, Michael Benedikt, and Balder ten Cate. 2013. Rewriting Guarded Negation Queries. In MFCS. 98--110.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Vince Bárány, Georg Gottlob, and Martin Otto. 2014. Querying the Guarded Fragment. Logical Methods in Computer Science Vol. 10, 2 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Vince Bárány, Balder ten Cate, and Luc Segoufin. 2015. Guarded Negation. J. ACM Vol. 62, 3 (2015), 22:1--22:26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Catriel Beeri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1981. The Implication Problem for Data Dependencies. In ICALP. 73--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Michael Benedikt, Pierre Bourhis, and Michael Vanden Boom. 2016. A Step Up in Expressiveness of Decidable Fixpoint Logics LICS. 817--826. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Michael Benedikt and Georg Gottlob. 2010. The Impact of Virtual Views on Containment. PVLDB Vol. 3, 1 (2010), 297--308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Gerald Berger and Andreas Pieris. 2016. Ontology-Mediated Queries Distributing over Components IJCAI. 943--949. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Meghyn Bienvenu, Peter Hansen, Carsten Lutz, and Frank Wolter. 2016. First Order-Rewritability and Containment of Conjunctive Queries in Horn Description Logics. In IJCAI. 965--971. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Meghyn Bienvenu, Carsten Lutz, and Frank Wolter. 2012. Query Containment in Description Logics Reconsidered KR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Meghyn Bienvenu, Balder ten Cate, Carsten Lutz, and Frank Wolter. 2013. Ontology-based data access: a study through disjunctive datalog, CSP, and MMSNP PODS. 213--224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pierre Bourhis, Markus Krötzsch, and Sebastian Rudolph. 2015. Reasonable Highly Expressive Query Languages. In IJCAI. 2826--2832. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Pierre Bourhis, Marco Manna, Michael Morak, and Andreas Pieris. 2016. Guarded-Based Disjunctive Tuple-Generating Dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. Vol. 41, 4 (2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Andrea Cal`ı, Georg Gottlob, and Michael Kifer. 2013. Taming the Infinite Chase: Query Answering under Expressive Relational Constraints. J. Artif. Intell. Res. Vol. 48 (2013), 115--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Andrea Cal`ı, Georg Gottlob, and Thomas Lukasiewicz. 2012 a. A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. J. Web Sem. Vol. 14 (2012), 57--83. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Andrea Cal`ı, Georg Gottlob, and Andreas Pieris. 2012 b. Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem. Artif. Intell. Vol. 193 (2012), 87--128. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Ashok K. Chandra and Philip M. Merlin. 1977. Optimal Implementation of Conjunctive Queries in Relational Data Bases STOC. 77--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Surajit Chaudhuri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1997. On the Equivalence of Recursive and Nonrecursive Datalog Programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Vol. 54, 1 (1997), 61--78. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Stavros S. Cosmadakis, Haim Gaifman, Paris C. Kanellakis, and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1988. Decidable Optimization Problems for Database Logic Programs (Preliminary Report) STOC. 477--490. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Thomas Eiter, Thomas Lukasiewicz, and Livia Predoiu. 2016. Generalized Consistent Query Answering under Existential Rules KR. 359--368. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ronald Fagin, Phokion G. Kolaitis, Renée J. Miller, and Lucian Popa. 2005. Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. Vol. 336, 1 (2005), 89--124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Georg Gottlob, Giorgio Orsi, and Andreas Pieris. 2014 a. Query Rewriting and Optimization for Ontological Databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. Vol. 39, 3 (2014), 25:1--25:46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Georg Gottlob and Christos H. Papadimitriou. 2003. On the complexity of single-rule datalog queries. Inf. Comput. Vol. 183, 1 (2003), 104--122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Georg Gottlob, Andreas Pieris, and Mantas Simkus. 2018. The Impact of Active Domain Predicates on Guarded Existential Rules. Fundam. Inform. Vol. 159, 1--2 (2018), 123--146.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Georg Gottlob, Sebastian Rudolph, and Mantas Simkus. 2014 b. Expressiveness of guarded existential rule languages PODS. 27--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Erich Gradel and Igor Walukiewicz. 1999. Guarded Fixed Point Logic. In LICS. 45--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lane A. Hemachandra. 1989. The Strong Exponential Hierarchy Collapses. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Vol. 39, 3 (1989), 299--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. David S. Johnson and Anthony C. Klug. 1984. Testing Containment of Conjunctive Queries under Functional and Inclusion Dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Vol. 28, 1 (1984), 167--189.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Thomas Lukasiewicz, Maria Vanina Martinez, Andreas Pieris, and Gerardo I. Simari. 2015. From Classical to Consistent Query Answering under Existential Rules AAAI. 1546--1552. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. David Maier, Alberto O. Mendelzon, and Yehoshua Sagiv. 1979. Testing Implications of Data Dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. Vol. 4, 4 (1979), 455--469. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Antonella Poggi, Domenico Lembo, Diego Calvanese, Giuseppe De Giacomo, Maurizio Lenzerini, and Riccardo Rosati. 2008. Linking Data to Ontologies. J. Data Semantics Vol. 10 (2008), 133--173. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Yehoshua Sagiv and Mihalis Yannakakis. 1980. Equivalences Among Relational Expressions with the Union and Difference Operators. J. ACM Vol. 27, 4 (1980), 633--655. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Oded Shmueli. 1993. Equivalence of DATALOG Queries is Undecidable. J. Log. Program. Vol. 15, 3 (1993), 231--241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Thomas Wilke. 2001. Alternating tree automata, parity games, and modal μ-calculus. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin Vol. 8, 2 (2001), 359--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Containment for Rule-Based Ontology-Mediated Queries

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          PODS '18: Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGAI Symposium on Principles of Database Systems
          May 2018
          462 pages
          ISBN:9781450347068
          DOI:10.1145/3196959

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          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: 27 May 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader