We investigate the decidability and computational complexity of conservative extensions and the related notions of inseparability and entailment in Horn description logics (DLs) with inverse roles. We consider both query conservative extensions, defined by requiring that the answers to all conjunctive queries are left unchanged, and deductive conservative extensions, which require that the entailed concept inclusions, role inclusions, and functionality assertions do not change. Upper bounds for query conservative extensions are particularly challenging because characterizations in terms of unbounded homomorphisms between universal models, which are the foundation of the standard approach to establishing decidability, fail in the presence of inverse roles. We resort to a characterization that carefully mixes unbounded and bounded homomorphisms and enables a decision procedure that combines tree automata and a mosaic technique. Our main results are that query conservative extensions are 2ExpTime-complete in all DLs between ELI and Horn-ALCHIF and between Horn-ALC and Horn-ALCHIF, and that deductive conservative extensions are 2ExpTime-complete in all DLs between ELI and ELHIF_bot. The same results hold for inseparability and entailment.

We investigate the decidability and computational complexity of query conservative extensions in Horn description logics (DLs) with inverse roles. This is more challenging than without inverse roles because characterizations in terms of unbounded homomorphisms between universal models fail, blocking the standard approach to establishing decidability. We resort to a combination of automata and mosaic techniques, proving that the problem is 2EXPTIME-complete in Horn-ALCHIF (and also in Horn-ALC and in ELI). We obtain the same upper bound for deductive conservative extensions, for which we also prove a CONEXPTIME lower bound.

Relation-changing modal logics are extensions of the basic modal logic with dynamic operators that modify the accessibility relation of a model during the evaluation of a formula. These languages are equipped with dynamic modalities that are able, for example, to delete, add, and swap edges in the model, both locally and globally. We study the satisfiability problem for some of these logics. We first show that they can be translated into hybrid logic. As a result, we can transfer some results from hybrid logics to relation-changing modal logics. We discuss in particular, decidability for some fragments. We then show that satisfiability is, in general, undecidable for all the languages introduced, via translations from memory logics.

Relation-changing modal logics are extensions of the basic modal logic that allow changes to the accessibility relation of a model during the evaluation of a formula. In particular, they are equipped with dynamic modalities that are able to delete, add, and swap edges in the model, both locally and globally. We provide translations from these logics to hybrid logic along with an implementation. In general, these logics are undecidable, but we use our translations to identify decidable fragments. We also compare the expressive power of relation-changing modal logics with hybrid logics.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract