Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
D. Surinx, J. Bussche (2018)
A Monotone Preservation Result for Boolean Queries Expressed as a Containment of Conjunctive QueriesArXiv, abs/1808.08822
Renzo Angles, P. Barceló, Gonzalo Rios (2013)
A Practical Query Language for Graph DBs
Michael Benedikt, J. Leblay, B. Cate, Efthymia Tsamoura (2016)
Generating Plans from Proofs: The Interpolation-based Approach to Query Reformulation
Benjamin Rossman (2008)
Homomorphism preservation theoremsJ. ACM, 55
S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, V. Vianu (1994)
Foundations of Databases
Expressing boolean
D. Surinx, G. Fletcher, M. Gyssens, Dirk Leinders, J. Bussche, D. Gucht, Stijn Vansummeren, Yuqing Wu (2015)
Relative expressive power of navigational querying on graphs using transitive closureLog. J. IGPL, 23
A. Badia (2009)
QLGQ: A Query Language with Generalized Quantifiers
B. Cate, maarten marx (2007)
Navigational XPath: calculus and algebraSIGMOD Rec., 36
P. Hell, J. Nesetril (2004)
Graphs and homomorphisms, 28
Tom Ameloot, Bas Ketsman, F. Neven, Daniel Zinn (2015)
Weaker Forms of Monotonicity for Declarative NetworkingACM Transactions on Database Systems (TODS), 40
L. Libkin, W. Martens, D. Vrgoc (2013)
Querying graph databases with XPath
L. Libkin (2004)
Elements of Finite Model Theory
P. Barceló (2013)
Querying graph databases
M. Ajtai, Y. Gurevich (1987)
Monotone versus positiveJ. ACM, 34
Seymour Furmand (1993)
DatabasesPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 16
T. Imielinski, W. Lipski (1984)
The Relational Model of Data and Cylindric AlgebrasJ. Comput. Syst. Sci., 28
(2018)
A Framework for Comparing Query Languages in Their Ability to Express Boolean Queries
P Wood (2012)
Query languages for graph databasesSIGMOD Rec., 41
J. Barwise, R. Cooper (1981)
Generalized quantifiers and natural languageLinguistics and Philosophy, 4
I. Cruz, A. Mendelzon, P. Wood (1987)
A graphical query language supporting recursion
HD Ebbinghaus, J Flum (1999)
Finite model theory
Y. Gurevich (1990)
On Finite Model Theory
A. Badia (2009)
Quantifiers in Action: Generalized Quantification in Query, Logical and Natural Languages
G. Fletcher, M. Gyssens, Dirk Leinders, J. Bussche, D. Gucht, Stijn Vansummeren, Yuqing Wu (2013)
The impact of transitive closure on the expressiveness of navigational query languages on unlabeled graphsAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 73
Y. Sagiv, M. Yannakakis (1980)
Equivalences Among Relational Expressions with the Union and Difference OperatorsJournal of the ACM (JACM), 27
L. Hella, Kerkko Luosto, J. Väänänen (1996)
The hierarchy theorem for generalized quantifiersJournal of Symbolic Logic, 61
C. Beeri, Moshe Vardi (1984)
A Proof Procedure for Data DependenciesJ. ACM, 31
A. Chandra, P. Merlin (1977)
Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases
If F ⊆ 2 (cid:54)⊆ F = ∅ 2 , then − (cid:54)∈ F 2 by Theorem 3
David Marker, Alessandro Berarducci, Emmanuel Breuillard, Dugald Macpherson, Silvio Levy (2018)
Model TheoryThe Incompleteness Phenomenon
maarten marx, M. Rijke (2005)
Semantic characterizations of navigational XPathSIGMOD Rec., 34
Phokion Kolaitis (2007)
On the Expressive Power of Logics on Finite Models
Y. Gurevich (1984)
Toward logic tailored for computational complexity, 1104
If S contains two distinct relation names R and T of the same arity, and the two queries R and T belong to F , then F ⊆ (cid:54)⊆ F = ∅
D. Surinx, G. Fletcher, M. Gyssens, Dirk Leinders, J. Bussche, D. Gucht, Stijn Vansummeren, Yuqing Wu (2011)
Relative expressive power of navigational querying on graphs
J. Bussche (2001)
Applications of Alfred Tarski's Ideas in Database Theory
A. Stolboushkin (1995)
Finitely monotone propertiesProceedings of Tenth Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
Proof 1. Consider the instance Z where Z ( R ) = { (1 , . . . , 1) } for each relation R
A. Badia (2009)
Quantifiers in Action, 37
Tom Ameloot, Bas Ketsman, F. Neven, Daniel Zinn (2014)
Weaker forms of monotonicity for declarative networking: a more fine-grained answer to the calm-conjectureProceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
D. Surinx, J. Bussche, D. Gucht (2017)
The primitivity of operators in the algebra of binary relations under conjunctions of containments2017 32nd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS)
If F ⊆ 2 (cid:54)⊆ F (cid:54) = ∅ 2 , then − (cid:54)∈ F 2 or all (cid:54)∈ F 2 by Theorem 3. If − (cid:54)∈ F 2 , then R 2 ⊆ R is not in F (cid:54) = ∅ 2 by Lemma 3.
Renzo Angles, Claudio Gutiérrez (2008)
Survey of graph database modelsACM Comput. Surv., 40
For any query language F $\mathcal {F}$ , we consider three natural families of boolean queries. Nonemptiness queries are expressed as e ≠ ∅ with e an F $\mathcal {F}$ expression. Emptiness queries are expressed as e = ∅. Containment queries are expressed as e 1 ⊆ e 2. We refer to syntactic constructions of boolean queries as modalities. In first order logic, the emptiness, nonemptiness and containment modalities have exactly the same expressive power. For other classes of queries, e.g., expressed in weaker query languages, the modalities may differ in expressiveness. We propose a framework for studying the expressive power of boolean query modalities. Along one dimension, one may work within a fixed query language and compare the three modalities. Here, we identify crucial query features that enable us to go from one modality to another. Furthermore, we identify semantical properties that reflect the lack of these query features to establish separations. Along a second dimension, one may fix a modality and compare different query languages. This second dimension is the one that has already received quite some attention in the literature, whereas in this paper we emphasize the first dimension. Combining both dimensions, it is interesting to compare the expressive power of a weak query language using a strong modality, against that of a seemingly stronger query language but perhaps using a weaker modality. We present some initial results within this theme. The two main query languages to which we apply our framework are the algebra of binary relations, and the language of conjunctive queries.
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 8, 2019
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.