{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024390243902439025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.462962962962963, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing the Expressiveness of Description Logics

This work studies the expressiveness of the description logics that extend ALCreg (a variant of PDL) with any combination of the features: inverse roles, nominals, quantified number restrictions, the universal role, the concept constructor for expressing the local reflexivity of a role. We compare the expressiveness of these description logics w.r.t. concepts, positive concepts, TBoxes and ABoxes. Our results about separating the expressiveness of description logics are based on bisimulations and bisimulation-based comparisons. They are naturally extended to the case when instead of ALCreg we have any sublogic of ALCreg that extends ALC.