Boris Motik
ABSTRACT
Schema statements in OWL are interpreted quite differently from analogous statements in relational databases. If these statements are meant to be interpreted as integrity constraints (ICs), OWL's interpretation may seem confusing and/or inappropriate. Therefore, we propose an extension of OWL with ICs that captures the intuition behind ICs in relational databases. We discuss the algorithms for checking IC satisfaction for different types of knowledge bases, and show that, if the constraints are satisfied, we can disregard them while answering a broad range of positive queries.
- S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison Wesley, 1995. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- F. Baader, S. Brandt, and C. Lutz. Pushing the EL Envelope. In Proc. IJCAI 2005, pages 364--369, Edinburgh, UK, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Baader and P. Hanschke. A Scheme for Integrating Concrete Domains into Concept Languages. In Proc. IJCAI '91, pages 452--457, Sydney, Australia, 1991.Google Scholar
- F. Baader and U. Sattler. An Overview of Tableau Algorithms for Description Logics. Studia Logica, 69:5--40, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Bonatti, C. Lutz, and F. Wolter. Description Logics with Circumscription. In Proc. KR 2006, pages 400--410, Lake District, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
- A. Borgida. On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics. Artificial Intelligence, 82(1-2):353--367, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Calvanese, D. D. Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. Keys for free in description logics. In Proc. DL 2000, Aachen, Germany, 2000.Google Scholar
- D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Data Complexity of Query Answering in Description Logics. In Proc. KR 2006, pages 260--270, Lake District, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
- D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, and M. Lenzerini. On the Decidability of Query Containment under Constraints. In Proc. PODS '98, pages 149--158, Seattle, WA, USA, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. M. Donini, D. Nardi, and R. Rosati. Description Logics of Minimal Knowledge and Negation as Failure. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 3(2):177--225, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Glimm, I. Horrocks, C. Lutz, and U. Sattler. Conjunctive Query Answering for the Description Logic SHIQ. In Proc. IJCAI 2007, India, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Haarslev and R. Möller. Incremental Query Answering for Implementing Document Retrieval Services. In Proc. DL 2003, Rome, Italy, 2003.Google Scholar
- S. Heymans, D. V. Nieuwenborgh, and D. Vermeir. Conceptual Logic Programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2006. To appear. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Y. Levy. Obtaining Complete Answers from Incomplete Databases. In Proc. VLDB '96, pages 402--412, Mumbai, India, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. W. Lloyd and R. W. Topor. Making Prolog More Expressive. Journal of Logic Programming, 1(3):225--240, 1984.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Lutz, C. Areces, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Keys, Nominals, and Concrete Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 23:667--726, 2005. Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Lutz, U. Sattler, and L. Tendera. The Complexity of Finite Model Reasoning in Description Logics. Information and Computation, 199:132--171, 2005. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Motik, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Integrating Description Logics and Relational Databases. Technical report, University of Manchester, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
- B. Motik and R. Rosati. A Faithful Integration of Description Logics with Logic Programming. In Proc. IJCAI 2007, Hyderabad, India, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Nonnengart and C. Weidenbach. Computing Small Clause Normal Forms. In Handbook of Automated Reasoning, volume I, chapter 6, pages 335--367. Elsevier Science, 2001.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. O. Rabin. Decidability of second--order theories and automata on infinite trees. Transations of the American Mathematical Society, 141:1--35, 1969.Google Scholar
- R. Reiter. What Should a Database Know? Journal of Logic Programming, 14(1-2):127--153, 1992. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Rosati. DL + log: A Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog. In Proc. KR 2006, pages 68--78, Lake District, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
- S. Tobies. Complexity Results and Practical Algorithms for Logics in Knowledge Representation. PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen, Germany, 2001.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases
Recommendations
On directly mapping relational databases to RDF and OWL
WWW '12: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide WebMapping relational databases to RDF is a fundamental problem for the development of the Semantic Web. We present a solution, inspired by draft methods defined by the W3C where relational databases are directly mapped to RDF and OWL. Given a relational ...
Bridging the gap between OWL and relational databases
Despite similarities between the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and schema languages traditionally used in relational databases, systems based on these languages exhibit quite different behavior in practice. The schema statements in relational databases ...
Storing OWL ontologies in SQL3 object-relational databases
AIC'08: Proceedings of the 8th conference on Applied informatics and communicationsWhen a large amount of data is stored in OWL files, it is not efficient to maintain and query those data. The OWL syntax is based on XML, which is a meta-markup language. Thus, it is suitable for data description and data exchange, rather than for data ...
Comments