On 6 Mar 2007, at 08:31, John F. Sowa wrote: > To continue my point that efficiency *always* depends > on what you're trying to do, I would like to address the > problem of finding a consistent set of constraints: > > > I, as usual, recommend the > > description logic complexity navigator: > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~ezolin/logic/complexity.html > > Given a set of arbitrary first-order constraints, the problem > of proving consistency is NP complete. Well, it seems to me: 1) the problem of checking consistency (i.e., finding the existence of a model) of an arbitrary FOL formula is not decidable; 2) the problem of checking that a FOL formula is true in an interpretation (i.e., that a DB is consistent wrt a set of FOL constraints) is PSPACE-complete in *combined* complexity (i.e, wrt the size of the constraints and the DB), while it is in PTIME in *data* complexity (i.e., wrt the size of the DB only); 3) according to the abovementioned DL complexity navigator, the problem of checking consistency of DL KBs is most of the time decidable. cheers --e.Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 00:35:49 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:22:46 GMT