Chase Termination for Guarded Existential Rules

The chase procedure is considered as one of the most fundamental algorithmic tools in database theory. It has been successfully applied to different database problems such as data exchange, and query answering and containment under constraints, to name a few. One of the central problems regarding the chase procedure is all-instance termination, that is, given a set of tuple-generating dependencies (TGDs) (a.k.a. existential rules), decide whether the chase under that set terminates, for every input database. It is well-known that this problem is undecidable, no matter which version of the chase we consider. The crucial question that comes up is whether existing restricted classes of TGDs, proposed in different contexts such as ontological query answering, make the above problem decidable. In this work, we focus our attention on the oblivious and the semi-oblivious versions of the chase procedure, and we give a positive answer for classes of TGDs that are based on the notion of guardedness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that establishes positive results about the (semi-)oblivious chase termination problem. In particular, we first concentrate on the class of linear TGDs, and we syntactically characterize, via rich- and weak-acyclicity, its fragments that guarantee the termination of the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase, respectively. Those syntactic characterizations, apart from being interesting in their own right, allow us to pinpoint the complexity of the problem, which is PSPACE-complete in general, and NL-complete if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, for both the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase. We then proceed with the more general classes of guarded and weakly-guarded TGDs. Although we do not provide syntactic characterizations for its relevant fragments, as for linear TGDs, we show that the problem under consideration remains decidable. In fact, we show that it is 2EXPTIME-complete in general, and EXPTIME-complete if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, for both the oblivious and the semi-oblivious chase. Finally, we investigate the expressive power of the query languages obtained from our analysis, and we show that they are equally expressive with standard database query languages. Nevertheless, we have strong indications that they are more succinct.

[1]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  The chase revisited , 2008, PODS.

[2]  Jean-François Baget,et al.  On rules with existential variables: Walking the decidability line , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Data exchange: semantics and query answering , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[5]  Bruno Marnette,et al.  Resolution and Datalog Rewriting Under Value Invention and Equality Constraints , 2012, ArXiv.

[6]  Serge Abiteboul,et al.  Foundations of Databases , 1994 .

[7]  Nicole Schweikardt,et al.  CWA-solutions for data exchange settings with target dependencies , 2007, PODS '07.

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

[9]  Sergio Greco,et al.  Incomplete Data and Data Dependencies in Relational Databases , 2012, Incomplete Data and Data Dependencies in Relational Databases.

[10]  F. Cole To the Best of Our Knowledge , 1979 .

[12]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  Efficient optimization of a class of relational expressions , 1978, SIGMOD Conference.

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

[14]  David Maier,et al.  Testing implications of data dependencies , 1979, SIGMOD '79.

[15]  Jerzy Marcinkowski,et al.  All-Instances Termination of Chase is Undecidable , 2014, ICALP.

[16]  Bruno Marnette,et al.  Generalized schema-mappings: from termination to tractability , 2009, PODS.

[17]  Georg Lausen,et al.  On Chase Termination Beyond Stratification , 2009, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[18]  Sergio Greco,et al.  Stratification criteria and rewriting techniques for checking chase termination , 2011, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[19]  Richard Edwin Stearns,et al.  Memory bounds for recognition of context-free and context-sensitive languages , 1965, SWCT.

[20]  Richard Edwin Stearns,et al.  Hierarchies of memory limited computations , 1965, SWCT.

[21]  Franz Baader Least Common Subsumers and Most Specific Concepts in a Description Logic with Existential Restrictions and Terminological Cycles , 2003, IJCAI.

[22]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Taming the Infinite Chase: Query Answering under Expressive Relational Constraints , 2008, Description Logics.

[23]  Boris Motik,et al.  Acyclicity Conditions and their Application to Query Answering in Description Logics , 2012, KR.

[24]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  A Proof Procedure for Data Dependencies , 1984, JACM.

[25]  Giorgio Orsi,et al.  Query Rewriting and Optimization for Ontological Databases , 2014, TODS.

[26]  Alin Deutsch,et al.  Reformulation of XML Queries and Constraints , 2003, ICDT.