skip to main content
research-article

Inference from Visible Information and Background Knowledge

Published:21 June 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We provide a wide-ranging study of the scenario where a subset of the relations in a relational vocabulary is visible to a user—that is, their complete contents are known—while the remaining relations are invisible. We also have a background theory—invariants given by logical sentences—that may relate the visible relations to invisible ones, and also may constrain both the visible and invisible relations in isolation. We want to determine whether some other information, given as a positive existential formula, can be inferred using only the visible information and the background theory. This formula whose inference we are concerned with is denoted as the query. We consider whether positive information about the query can be inferred, and also whether negative information—the sentence does not hold—can be inferred. We further consider both the instance-level version of the problem, where both the query and the visible instance are given, and the schema-level version, where we want to know whether truth or falsity of the query can be inferred in some instance of the schema.

References

  1. S. Abiteboul and O. Duschka. 1998. Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. In Proceedings of PODS’98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. 1995. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Antoine Amarilli and Michael Benedikt. 2018. When Can We Answer Queries Using Result-Bounded Interfaces? Retrieved March 21, 2021 from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.07936.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jean-François Baget, Michel Leclère, Marie-Laure Mugnier, and Eric Salvat. 2009. Extending decidable cases for rules with existential variables. In Proceedings of IJCAI’09. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Vince Bárány, Balder Ten Cate, and Martin Otto. 2012. Queries with guarded negation. In Proceedings of VLDB’12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Vince Bárány, Balder Ten Cate, and Luc Segoufin. 2011. Guarded negation. In Proceedings of ICALP’11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Vince Bárány, Balder Ten Cate, and Luc Segoufin. 2015. Guarded negation. J. ACM 62, 3 (2015), Article 22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Vince Bárány, George Gottlob, and Martin Otto. 2010. Querying the guarded fragment. In Proceedings of LICS’10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C. Beeri and M. Y. Vardi. 1981. The implication problem for data dependencies. In Proceedings of ICALP’81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Benedikt, Pierre Bourhis, Louis Jachiet, and Michaël Thomazo. 2019. Reasoning about disclosure in data integration in the presence of source constraint. In Proceedings of IJCAI’19. Long version available at arxiv.org/pdf/1906.00624.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Michael Benedikt, Pierre Bourhis, Louis Jachiet, and Efthymia Tsamoura. 2020. Balancing expressiveness and inexpressiveness in view design. In Proceedings of KR’20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Michael Benedikt, Pierre Bourhis, Gabriele Puppis, and Balder ten Cate. 2016. Querying visible and invisible information. In Proceedings of LICS’16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Michael Benedikt, Pierre Bourhis, and Michael Vanden Boom. 2017. Characterizing definability in decidable fixpoint logics. In Proceedings of ICALP’17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Michael Benedikt, Thomas Colcombet, Balder ten Cate, and Michael Vanden Boom. 2015. The complexity of boundedness for guarded logics. In Proceedings ofLICS’15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael Benedikt, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, and Egor V. Kostylev. 2017. Source information disclosure in ontology-based data integration. In Proceedings ofAAAI’17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Michael Benedikt, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, and Egor V. Kostylev. 2018. Logical foundations of information disclosure in ontology-based data integration. Artif. Intell. 262 (2018), 52–95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michael Benedikt, Boris Motik, and Efthymia Tsamoura. 2018. Goal-driven query answering for existential rules with equality. In Proceedings ofAAAI’18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael Benedikt, Balden ten Cate, Julien Leblay, and Efthymia Tsamoura. 2016. Generating Plans from Proofs: The Interpolation-Based Approach to Query Reformulation. Morgan Claypool. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Michael Benedikt, Balder ten Cate, and Efi Tsamoura. 2016. Generating plans from proofs. ACM TODS 40, 4 (2016), Article 22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Michael Benedikt, Balder ten Cate, and Michael Vanden Boom. 2014. Effective interpolation and preservation in guarded logics. In Proceedings ofCSL-LICS’14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. E. W. Beth. 1953. On Padoa’s method in the theory of definitions. Indagationes Mathematicae 15 (1953), 330–339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Pierre Bourhis, Marco Manna, Michael Morak, and Andreas Pieris. 2016. Guarded-based disjunctive tuple-generating dependencies. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 41, 4 (2016), Article 27, 45 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Andrea Calì, George Gottlob, and Michael Kifer. 2013. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. JAIR 48 (2013), 115–174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Marco A. Casanova, Ronald Fagin, and Christos Papadimitriou. 1984. Inclusion dependencies and their interaction with functional dependencies. JCSS 28, 1 (1984), 29–59.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. C. C. Chang and H. J. Keisler. 1990. Model Theory. North-Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. R. Chirkova and T. Yu. 2014. Obtaining information about queries behind views and dependencies. arXiv:1403.5199Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Alin Deutsch, Alan Nash, and Jeff Remmel. 2008. The chase revisited. In Proceedings ofPODS’08. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Ronald Fagin, Phokion G. Kolaitis, Renee J. Miller, and Lucian Popa. 2005. Data exchange: Semantics and query answering. Theor. Comput. Sci. 336, 1 (2005), 89–124. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. W. Fan and F. Geerts. 2010. Capturing missing tuples and missing values. In Proceedings ofPODS’10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. W. Fan and F. Geerts. 2010. Relative information completeness. ACM TODS 35, 4 (2010), 27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. E. Franconi, Y. Ibáñez-García, and I. Seylan. 2011. Query answering with DBoxes is hard. ENTCS 278 (2011), 71–84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Tomasz Gogacz and Jerzy Marcinkowski. 2014. All-instances termination of chase is undecidable. In Proceedings ofICALP’14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Tomasz Gogacz and Jerzy Marcinkowski. 2015. The hunt for a red spider: Conjunctive query determinacy is undecidable. In Proceedings ofLICS’15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. George Gottlob and Christos Papadimitriou. 2003. On the complexity of single-rule datalog queries. Inf. Comp. 183 (2003), 104–122. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. B. Cuenca Grau, I. Horrocks, M. Krötzsch, C. Kupke, D. Magka, B. Motik, and Z. Wang. 2013. Acyclicity notions for existential rules and their application to query answering in ontologies. J. Artif. Int. Res. 47, 1 (2013), 741–808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. M. Guarnieri and D. A. Basin. 2014. Optimal security-aware query processing. PVLDB 7, 12 (2014), 1307–1318. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. B. Konev, C. Lutz, D. Walther, and F. Wolter. 2013. Model-theoretic inseparability and modularity of description logic ontologies. Artif. Intell. 203 (2013), 66–103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. P. Koutris, P. Upadhyaya, M. Balazinska, B. Howe, and D. Suciu. 2012. Query-based data pricing. In Proceedings ofPODS’12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. C. Lutz, I. Seylan, and F. Wolter. 2012. Mixing open and closed world assumption in ontology-based data access: Non-uniform data complexity. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Workshop on Description Logics. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-846/paper_17.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. C. Lutz, I. Seylan, and F. Wolter. 2013. Ontology-based data access with closed predicates is inherently intractable (sometimes). In Proceedings ofIJCAI’13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Carsten Lutz, Inanc Seylan, and Frank Wolter. 2015. Ontology-mediated queries with closed predicates. In Proceedings ofIJCAI’15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. C. Lutz and F. Wolter. 2007. Conservative extensions in the lightweight description logic EL. In Proceedings ofCADE’07. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Bruno Marnette and Floris Geerts. 2010. Static analysis of schema-mappings ensuring oblivious termination. In Proceedings ofICDT’10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. G. Miklau and D. Suciu. 2007. A formal analysis of information disclosure in data exchange. JCSS 73, 3 (2007), 507–534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Alan Nash and Alin Deutsch. 2006. Privacy in GLAV information integration. In Proceedings ofICDT’06. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. A. Nash, L. Segoufin, and V. Vianu. 2010. Views and queries: Determinacy and rewriting. ACM TODS 35, 3 (2010), Article 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Nhung Ngo, Magdalena Ortiz, and Mantas Simkus. 2016. Closed predicates in description logics: Results on combined complexity. In Proceedings ofKR’16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Adrian Onet. 2013. The chase procedure and its applications in data exchange. In Data Exchange Intregation and Streams. Schloss Dagstuhl, 1–37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Oded Shmueli. 1993. Equivalence of datalog queries is undecidable. JLAP 15, 3 (1993), 231–241. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. M. Y. Vardi. 1998. Reasoning about the past with two-way automata. In Proceedings ofICALP’98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Z. Zhang and A. O. Mendelzon. 2005. Authorization views and conditional query containment. In Proceedings ofICDT’05. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Inference from Visible Information and Background Knowledge

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
        ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 22, Issue 2
        April 2021
        252 pages
        ISSN:1529-3785
        EISSN:1557-945X
        DOI:10.1145/3465459
        • Editor:
        • Orna Kupferman
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 June 2021
        • Accepted: 1 February 2021
        • Revised: 1 November 2020
        • Received: 1 October 2019
        Published in tocl Volume 22, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format