Polynomial Rewritings from Expressive Description Logics with Closed Predicates to Variants of Datalog

Abstract In many scenarios, complete and incomplete information coexist. For this reason, the knowledge representation and database communities have long shown interest in simultaneously supporting the closed- and the open-world views when reasoning about logic theories. Here we consider the setting of querying possibly incomplete data using logic theories, formalized as the evaluation of an ontology-mediated query (OMQ) that pairs a query with a theory, sometimes called an ontology, expressing background knowledge. This can be further enriched by specifying a set of closed predicates from the theory that are to be interpreted under the closed-world assumption, while the rest are interpreted with the open-world view. In this way we can retrieve more precise answers to queries by leveraging the partial completeness of the data. The central goal of this paper is to understand the relative expressiveness of ontology-mediated query languages in which the ontology part is written in the expressive Description Logic (DL) ALCHOI and includes a set of closed predicates. We consider a restricted class of conjunctive queries. Our main result is to show that every query in this non-monotonic query language can be translated in polynomial time into Datalog with negation as failure under the stable model semantics. To overcome the challenge that Datalog has no direct means to express the existential quantification present in ALCHOI , we define a two-player game that characterizes the satisfaction of the ontology, and design a Datalog query that can decide the existence of a winning strategy for the game. If there are no closed predicates—in the case of querying an ALCHOI knowledge base—our translation yields a positive disjunctive Datalog program of polynomial size. To the best of our knowledge, unlike previous translations for related fragments with expressive (non-Horn) DLs, these are the first polynomial time translations.

[1]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Nested Regular Path Queries in Description Logics , 2014, KR.

[2]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity and expressive power of logic programming , 1997, Proceedings of Computational Complexity. Twelfth Annual IEEE Conference.

[3]  Wenfei Fan,et al.  Capturing missing tuples and missing values , 2010, PODS.

[4]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  The Complexity of Conjunctive Query Answering in Expressive Description Logics , 2008, IJCAR.

[5]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Closed Predicates in Description Logics: Results on Combined Complexity , 2016, AMW.

[6]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Ontology-Mediated Query Answering with Data-Tractable Description Logics , 2015, Reasoning Web.

[7]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  Rewriting Ontological Queries into Small Nonrecursive Datalog Programs , 2011, Description Logics.

[8]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Polynomial Disjunctive Datalog Rewritings of Instance Queries in Expressive Description Logics , 2016, Description Logics.

[9]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Data Complexity of Query Answering in Description Logics , 2006, Description Logics.

[10]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Expressiveness of guarded existential rule languages , 2014, PODS.

[11]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Ontology-Based Data Access with Closed Predicates is Inherently Intractable(Sometimes) , 2013, IJCAI.

[12]  Boris Motik,et al.  Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints , 2010, J. Appl. Log..

[13]  Thomas Lukasiewicz,et al.  A Novel Combination of Answer Set Programming with Description Logics for the Semantic Web , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Mihalis Yannakakis,et al.  Algorithms for Acyclic Database Schemes , 1981, VLDB.

[15]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Consequence-Based Reasoning beyond Horn Ontologies , 2011, IJCAI.

[16]  Andrea Calì,et al.  A general datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies , 2009, SEBD.

[17]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  KR and Reasoning on the Semantic Web: OWL , 2011, Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies.

[18]  Giorgos Stoilos,et al.  Optimising Resolution-Based Rewriting Algorithms for DL Ontologies , 2013, Description Logics.

[19]  Enrico Franconi,et al.  Query Answering with DBoxes is Hard , 2011, M4M/LAMAS.

[20]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reasoning in Description Logics by a Reduction to Disjunctive Datalog , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[21]  J. Bruijn,et al.  Effective query rewriting with ontologies over DBoxes , 2009, IJCAI 2009.

[22]  Thomas Schwentick,et al.  The price of query rewriting in ontology-based data access , 2014, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Ian Horrocks,et al.  Query Containment Using a DLR ABox , 1999 .

[24]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Combining Rules and Ontologies into Clopen Knowledge Bases , 2018, AAAI.

[25]  Yavor Nenov,et al.  Datalog rewritability of Disjunctive Datalog programs and non-Horn ontologies , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[26]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  Ontology-Mediated Queries with Closed Predicates , 2015, IJCAI.

[27]  Boris Motik,et al.  Reconciling description logics and rules , 2010, JACM.

[28]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Answering regular path queries in expressive Description Logics via alternating tree-automata , 2014, Inf. Comput..

[29]  Hans Tompits,et al.  Combining answer set programming with description logics for the Semantic Web , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Disjunctive datalog , 1997, TODS.

[31]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Polynomial Rewritings for Linear Existential Rules , 2015, IJCAI.

[32]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Polynomial Datalog Rewritings for Expressive Description Logics with Closed Predicates , 2016, IJCAI.

[33]  Carsten Lutz,et al.  The Combined Approach to Ontology-Based Data Access , 2011, IJCAI.

[34]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Polynomial Combined Rewritings for Existential Rules , 2014, KR.

[35]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[36]  Klaus Schild,et al.  A Correspondence Theory for Terminological Logics: Preliminary Report , 1991, IJCAI.

[37]  Michael Benedikt,et al.  Source Information Disclosure in Ontology-Based Data Integration , 2017, AAAI.

[38]  Michael Benedikt,et al.  Rewriting Guarded Negation Queries , 2013, MFCS.

[39]  Magdalena Ortiz,et al.  Rewriting Guarded Existential Rules into Small Datalog Programs , 2018, ICDT.

[40]  Werner Nutt,et al.  Databases under the Partial Closed-world Assumption: A Survey , 2014, Grundlagen von Datenbanken.

[41]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Conjunctive query answering in the description logic SH using knots , 2012, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[42]  Michael Benedikt,et al.  Querying Visible and Invisible Information , 2016, 2016 31st Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS).

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

[44]  Wenfei Fan,et al.  Relative information completeness , 2009, PODS.

[45]  Riccardo Rosati,et al.  DL+log: Tight Integration of Description Logics and Disjunctive Datalog , 2006, KR.

[46]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Tractable Reasoning and Efficient Query Answering in Description Logics: The DL-Lite Family , 2007, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[47]  Andrea Schaerf Reasoning with Individuals in Concept Languages , 1993, AI*IA.

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

[49]  Thomas Eiter,et al.  Query Rewriting for Horn-SHIQ Plus Rules , 2012, AAAI.