Guarded-Based Disjunctive Tuple-Generating Dependencies

We perform an in-depth complexity analysis of query answering under guarded-based classes of disjunctive tuple-generating dependencies (DTGDs), focusing on (unions of) conjunctive queries ((U)CQs). We show that the problem under investigation is very hard, namely 2ExpTime-complete, even for fixed sets of dependencies of a very restricted form. This is a surprising lower bound that demonstrates the enormous impact of disjunction on query answering under guarded-based tuple-generating dependencies, and also reveals the source of complexity for expressive logics such as the guarded fragment of first-order logic. We then proceed to investigate whether prominent subclasses of (U)CQs (i.e., queries of bounded treewidth and hypertree-width, and acyclic queries) have a positive impact on the complexity of the problem under consideration. We show that queries of bounded treewidth and bounded hypertree-width do not reduce the complexity of our problem, even if we focus on predicates of bounded arity or on fixed sets of DTGDs. Regarding acyclic queries, although the problem remains 2ExpTime-complete in general, in some relevant settings the complexity reduces to ExpTime-complete. Finally, with the aim of identifying tractable cases, we focus our attention on atomic queries. We show that atomic queries do not make the query answering problem easier under classes of guarded-based DTGDs that allow more than one atom to occur in the body of the dependencies. However, the complexity significantly decreases in the case of dependencies that can have only one atom in the body. In particular, we obtain a Ptime-completeness if we focus on predicates of bounded arity, and AC0-membership when the set of dependencies and the query are fixed. Interestingly, our results can be used as a generic tool for establishing complexity results for query answering under various description logics.

[1]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Hypertree decompositions and tractable queries , 1998, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[2]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Datalog+/-: A Family of Logical Knowledge Representation and Query Languages for New Applications , 2010, 2010 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[3]  Moshe Y. Vardi The complexity of relational query languages (Extended Abstract) , 1982, STOC '82.

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

[5]  Matthias Jarke,et al.  Logic Programming and Databases , 1984, Expert Database Workshop.

[6]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The DL-Lite Family and Relations , 2009, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[8]  Andrea Calì,et al.  A general Datalog-based framework for tractable query answering over ontologies , 2012, J. Web Semant..

[9]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  ACM Transactions on Database Systems , 2005 .

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

[11]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Walking the Complexity Lines for Generalized Guarded Existential Rules , 2011, IJCAI.

[12]  Moshe Y. Vardi On the Complexity of Bounded-Variable Queries. , 1995, PODS 1995.

[13]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  A Generic Querying Algorithm for Greedy Sets of Existential Rules , 2012, KR.

[14]  Balder ten Cate,et al.  Guarded Negation , 2011, Advances in Modal Logic.

[15]  Francesco M. Donini,et al.  Deduction in Concept Languages: From Subsumption to Instance Checking , 1994, J. Log. Comput..

[16]  Moshe Y. Vardi On the complexity of bounded-variable queries (extended abstract) , 1995, PODS '95.

[17]  Giorgio Terracina,et al.  Efficiently Computable Datalog∃ Programs , 2012, KR.

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

[19]  Bruno Courcelle,et al.  The monadic second-order logic of graphs, II: Infinite graphs of bounded width , 1988, Mathematical systems theory.

[20]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  On the Complexity of Ontological Reasoning under Disjunctive Existential Rules , 2012, MFCS.

[21]  Andreas Pieris,et al.  Towards Efficient Reasoning Under Guarded-Based Disjunctive Existential Rules , 2014, MFCS.

[22]  Gert Smolka,et al.  Attributive Concept Descriptions with Complements , 1991, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Salil P. Vadhan,et al.  Computational Complexity , 2005, Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security.

[24]  Andrea Calì,et al.  Towards more expressive ontology languages: The query answering problem , 2012, Artif. Intell..

[25]  Mario Alviano,et al.  Disjunctive datalog with existential quantifiers: Semantics, decidability, and complexity issues , 2012, Theory Pract. Log. Program..

[26]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Extending Decidable Existential Rules by Joining Acyclicity and Guardedness , 2011, IJCAI.

[27]  Catriel Beeri,et al.  The Implication Problem for Data Dependencies , 1981, ICALP.

[28]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Database theory—past and future , 1987, PODS.

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

[30]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Querying the Guarded Fragment , 2010, 2010 25th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science.

[31]  Boris Motik,et al.  OWL 2: The next step for OWL , 2008, J. Web Semant..

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

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

[34]  Andreas Pieris,et al.  The Impact of Disjunction on Query Answering Under Guarded-Based Existential Rules , 2013, Description Logics.

[35]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Inclusion dependencies and their interaction with functional dependencies , 1982, PODS.

[36]  Andrea Schaerf,et al.  On the complexity of the instance checking problem in concept languages with existential quantification , 1993, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

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

[38]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Modal Languages and Bounded Fragments of Predicate Logic , 1998, J. Philos. Log..

[39]  Erich Grädel,et al.  On the Restraining Power of Guards , 1999, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

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

[41]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Quasi-inverses of schema mappings , 2007, PODS '07.

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

[43]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Inverting schema mappings , 2006, TODS.

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

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

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

[47]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  Nominals, Inverses, Counting, and Conjunctive Queries or: Why Infinity is your Friend! , 2010, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

[49]  Anand Rajaraman,et al.  Conjunctive query containment revisited , 1997, Theor. Comput. Sci..

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

[51]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies , 1982, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..