skip to main content
research-article

Advanced processing for ontological queries

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 September 2010Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Ontology-based data access is a powerful form of extending database technology, where a classical extensional database (EDB) is enhanced by an ontology that generates new intensional knowledge which may contribute to answer a query. The ontological integrity constraints for generating this intensional knowledge can be specified in description logics such as DL-Lite. It was recently shown that these formalisms allow for very efficient query-answering. They are, however, too weak to express simple and useful integrity constraints that involve joins. In this paper we introduce a more expressive formalism that takes joins into account, while still enjoying the same low query-answering complexity. In our framework, ontological constraints are expressed by sets of rules that are so-called tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs). We propose the language of sticky sets of TGDs, which are sets of TGDs with a restriction on multiple occurrences of variables (including joins) in the rule bodies. We establish complexity results for answering conjunctive queries under sticky sets of TGDs, showing, in particular, that ontological conjunctive queries can be compiled into first-order and thus SQL queries over the given EDB instance. We also show how sticky sets of TGDs can be combined with functional dependencies. In summary, we obtain a highly expressive and effective ontological modeling language that unifies and generalizes both classical database constraints and important features of the most widespread tractable description logics.

References

  1. Data grid inc. http://dt123.com/DataGrid/DataGridWebsiteV1a/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Oracle semantic technology center. http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/semantic_technologies/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. A. Acciarri, D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, M. Palmieri, and R. Rosati. QuOnto: Querying ontologies. In Proc. of AAAI, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J.-F. Baget, M. Leclère, M.-L. Mugnier, and E. Salvat. Extending decidable cases for rules with existential variables. In Proc. of IJCAI, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. V. Barany, G. Gottlob, and M. Otto. Querying the guarded fragment. In Proc. of LICS, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proc. of ICALP, 1981. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. L. Cabibbo. The expressive power of stratified logic programs with value invention. Inf. Comput., 147(1), 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and M. Kifer. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In Proc. of KR, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and T. Lukasiewicz. A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies. In Proc. of PODS, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Advanced processing for ontological queries. Unpublished manuscript. Available at: http://benner.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/staff/gottlob/CGP.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Tractable query answering over conceptual schemata. In Proc. of ER, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Calì, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Query answering under non-guarded rules in datalog+/-. In Proc. of RR, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Calì, D. Lembo, and R. Rosati. On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases. In Proc. of PODS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-lite family. J. Autom. Reasoning, 39(3), 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D. Calvanese, G. D. Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Data complexity of query answering in description logics. In Proc. of KR, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proc. of STOCS, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. A. K. Chandra and M. Y. Vardi. The implication problem for functional and inclusion dependencies. SIAM Journal of Computing, 14, 1985.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. E. Dantsin, T. Eiter, G. Georg, and A. Voronkov. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Comput. Surv., 33(3), 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Deutsch, A. Nash, and J. B. Remmel. The chase revisisted. In Proc. of PODS, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Deutsch and V. Tannen. Reformulation of XML queries and constraints. In Proc. of ICDT, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. R. Fagin, P. G. Kolaitis, R. J. Miller, and L. Popa. Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci., 336(1), 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. I. Horrocks. Using an expressive description logic: FaCT or fiction? In Proc. of KR, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. D. S. Johnson and A. C. Klug. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 28(1), 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. D. Maier, A. O. Mendelzon, and Y. Sagiv. Testing implications of data dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 4(4), 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. D. Mailharrow. A classification and constraint-based framework for configuration. Artif. Intell. for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 12(4), 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. A. Poggi, D. Lembo, D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Linking data to ontologies. J. Data Semantics, 10, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. R. Rosati. On the decidability and finite controllability of query processing in databases with incomplete information. In Proc. of PODS, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Rudolph, M. Krötzsch, and P. Hitzler. All elephants are bigger than all mice. In Description Logics, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. M. Y. Vardi. On the complexity of bounded-variable queries. In Proc. of PODS, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Advanced processing for ontological queries
            Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

            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

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
              Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment  Volume 3, Issue 1-2
              September 2010
              1658 pages

              Publisher

              VLDB Endowment

              Publication History

              • Published: 1 September 2010
              Published in pvldb Volume 3, Issue 1-2

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader