- From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:11:06 -0500
- To: "'Enrico Franconi'" <franconi@inf.unibz.it>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Adrian Walker'" <adrianw@snet.net>, "'Andrei Voronkov'" <voronkov@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Raphael Volz'" <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, "'Boris Motik'" <motik@fzi.de>
That is exactly what we have been saying. Raphael > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Enrico Franconi > Gesendet: Montag, 20. Oktober 2003 04:22 > An: www-rdf-logic@w3.org; www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Cc: Adrian Walker; Andrei Voronkov; Raphael Volz; Boris Motik > Betreff: Encoding of OWL in a rule system (such as Datalog) > > > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 16:26 Europe/Rome, Adrian Walker wrote: > > Andrei Voronkov kindly sent me a pointer to the excellent paper > > "Complexity and the Expressive Power of Logic Programming", that he > > wrote with Dantsin, Eiter and Gottlob. In the paper, they point out > > that "complexity" can be "data complexity" or "program > complexity". > > The two are very different. Data complexity is the complexity of > > checking whether Din U P |= A for a fixed datalog program P and > > variable input databases Din and ground atoms A. It is > "polynomial". > > Program complexity is the complexity of checking whether > Din U P |= A > > for variable datalog programs P and ground atoms A over a > fixed input > > database Din. It is complete in DEXPTIME. > > Of course I know very well those results and that paper. > > The proof of the statement that query answering with OWL-lite (or any > richer ontology language) can not be polynomially encoded in a rule > system such as Datalog derives from the fact that the problem of > instance checking in OWL-lite is coNP-hard in DATA complexity. Full > stop. > > On Tuesday, Oct 7, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Rome, Raphael Volz wrote: > > We a working on a reduction of SHIQ to Disj. Datalog with equality, > > (w/o closed world negation!) which will for some knowledge base > > generate a set of rules (whose number is worst-case > exponential in the > > size of the knowledge base), which preserves satisfiabilty and > > entailment. > > If there is an EXPONENTIAL blow up in the number of the target rules > with respect to the number of the axioms in the original > knowledge base > everything is possible. > > cheers > --e. > > Enrico Franconi - franconi@inf.unibz.it > Free University of Bozen-Bolzano - http://www.inf.unibz.it/~franconi/ > Faculty of Computer Science - Phone: (+39) 0471-315-642 > I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy - Fax: (+39) 0471-315-649 >
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 18:11:51 UTC