Nominal Schemas in Description Logics: Complexities Clarified

Nominal schemas extend description logics (DLs) with a restricted form of variables, thus integrating rule-like expressive power into standard DLs. They are also one of the most recently introduced DL features, and in spite of many works on algorithms and implementations, almost nothing is known about their computational complexity and expressivity. We close this gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the reasoning complexities of a wide range of DLs—from EL to SROIQ—extended with nominal schemas. Both combined and data complexities increase by one exponential in most cases, with the one previously known case of SROIQ being the main exception. Our proofs employ general modeling techniques that exploit the power of nominal schemas to succinctly represent many axioms, and which can also be applied to study DLs beyond those we consider. To further improve our understanding of nominal schemas, we also investigate their semantics, traditionally based on finite grounding, and show that it can be extended to infinite sets of individuals without affecting reasoning complexities. We argue that this might be a more suitable semantics when considering entailments of axioms with nominal schemas.

[1]  Stephan Tobies,et al.  Complexity results and practical algorithms for logics in knowledge representation , 2001, ArXiv.

[2]  Boris Motik,et al.  Query Answering for OWL-DL with Rules , 2004, SEMWEB.

[3]  Stephan Tobies,et al.  The Complexity of Reasoning with Cardinality Restrictions and Nominals in Expressive Description Logics , 2011, ArXiv.

[4]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  All Elephants are Bigger than All Mice , 2008, Description Logics.

[5]  Boris Motik,et al.  Hypertableau Reasoning for Description Logics , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[6]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  A better uncle for OWL: nominal schemas for integrating rules and ontologies , 2011, WWW.

[7]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Complexities of Horn Description Logics , 2013, TOCL.

[8]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity and expressive power of logic programming , 2001, CSUR.

[9]  Pascal Hitzler,et al.  A Tableau Algorithm for Description Logics with Nominal Schema , 2012, RR.

[10]  Birte Glimm,et al.  Nominal Schema Absorption , 2013, IJCAI.

[11]  Cong Wang,et al.  A Resolution Procedure for Description Logics with Nominal Schemas , 2012, JIST.

[12]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  A Description Logic Primer , 2012, ArXiv.

[13]  Johanna Völker,et al.  Integrated Metamodeling and Diagnosis in OWL 2 , 2010, SEMWEB.

[14]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Revisiting Semantics for Epistemic Extensions of Description Logics , 2011, AAAI.

[15]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Cheap Boolean Role Constructors for Description Logics , 2008, JELIA.

[16]  Yevgeny Kazakov,et al.  RIQ and SROIQ Are Harder than SHOIQ , 2008, KR.

[17]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Worst-Case Optimal Reasoning for the Horn-DL Fragments of OWL 1 and 2 , 2010, KR.

[18]  Bijan Parsia,et al.  Extending the SHOIQ(D) Tableaux with DL-safe Rules: First Results , 2006, Description Logics.

[19]  Jan Hladik A Tableau System for the Description Logic SHIO , 2004, IJCAR Doctoral Programme.

[20]  Yevgeny Kazakov,et al.  SRIQ and SROIQ are Harder than SHOIQ , 2008, Description Logics.

[21]  Franz Baader,et al.  Pushing the EL Envelope , 2005, IJCAI.

[22]  Matthias Knorr,et al.  Reconciling OWL and Non-monotonic Rules for the Semantic Web , 2012, ECAI.

[23]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Regular Path Queries in Expressive Description Logics with Nominals , 2009, IJCAI.

[24]  Cong Wang,et al.  Towards an Efficient Algorithm to Reason over Description Logics Extended with Nominal Schemas , 2013, RR.

[25]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  The Even More Irresistible SROIQ , 2006, KR.

[26]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Unions of Conjunctive Queries in SHOQ , 2008, KR.