Journal of Computer Science and Technology

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 652–664 | Cite as

System Π: A Native RDF Repository Based on the Hypergraph Representation for RDF Data Model

  • Gang WuEmail author
  • Juan-Zi Li
  • Jian-Qiang Hu
  • Ke-Hong Wang
Regular Paper


RDF is the data interchange layer for the Semantic Web. In order to manage the increasing amount of RDF data, an RDF repository should provide not only the necessary scalability and efficiency, but also sufficient inference capabilities. Though existing RDF repositories have made progress towards these goals, there is still ample space for improving the overall performance. In this paper, we propose a native RDF repository, System Π, to pursue a better tradeoff among system scalability, query efficiency, and inference capabilities. System Π takes a hypergraph representation for RDF as the data model for its persistent storage, which effectively avoids the costs of data model transformation when accessing RDF data. Based on this native storage scheme, a set of efficient semantic query processing techniques are designed. First, several indices are built to accelerate RDF data access including a value index, a labeling scheme for transitive closure computation, and three triple indices. Second, we propose a hybrid inference strategy under the pD * semantics to support inference for OWL-Lite with a relatively low computational complexity. Finally, we extend the SPARQL algebra to explicitly express inference semantics in logical query plan by defining some new algebra operators. In addition, MD5 hash value of URI and schema level cache are introduced as practical implementation techniques. The results of performance evaluation on the LUBM benchmark and a real data set show that System Π has a better combined metric value than other comparable systems.


RDF data management query processing index 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

11390_2009_9265_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (95 kb)
(PDF 95.3 kb)


  1. [1]
    Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. W3C, 2004,
  2. [2]
    W3C Semantic Web Activity. W3C, 2007,
  3. [3]
    Tim Berners-Lee. Artificial intelligence and the semantic Web. AAAI Keynote, Boston, USA, July 2006,
  4. [4]
    Guo Y, Pan Z, Heflin J. LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 2005, 3(2/3): 158–182.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Jeen Broekstra, Arjohn Kampman, Frank van Harmelen. Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In Proc. the First International Semantic Web Conference on the Semantic Web (ISWC'02), London, UK, Springer-Verlag, June 10{12, 2002, pp.54–68.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Carroll J J, Dickinson I, Dollin C, Reynolds D, Seaborne A, Wilkinson K. Jena: Implementing the semantic Web recommendations. In Proc. the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers & Posters (WWW Alt.'04), New York, USA, ACM Press, 2004, pp.74–83.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Pan Z X, Heflin J. DLDB: Extending relational databases to support semantic Web queries. Technical Report LUCSE-04-006, Dept. Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Alexaki S, Christophides V, Karvounarakis G, Plexousakis D, Tolle D. The ICS-FORTH RDFSuite: Managing voluminous RDF description bases. In Proc. the 2nd International Work-shop on the Semantic Web, Hong Kong, China, May 1, 2001, pp.1–13.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Ma L, Su Z, Pan Y, Zhang L, Liu T. RStar: An RDF storage and query system for enterprise resource management. In Proc. the Thirteenth ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'04), Washington DC, USA, 2004, pp.484–491.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Wood D, Gearon P, Adams T. Kowari: A platform for semantic Web storage and analysis. In Proc. XTech, Amsterdam, Netherlands, May 24–27, 2005.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Chen Y, Ou J, Jiang Y, Meng X. HStar — A semantic repository for large scale OWL documents. In Proc. ASWC, Beijing, China, September 3–7, 2006, pp.415–428.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hayes J. A graph model for RDF [Master's Thesis]. Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany, August 2004.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Amadís Antonio Martínez-Morales, Maria-Esther Vidal. A directed hypergraph formal model for RDF. In Joint ODBIS & SWDB Workshop on Semantic Web, Ontologies, Databases and Information Systems (SWDB-ODBIS07), Poster, Vienna, Austria, September 24, 2007.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Aleman-Meza B, Hakimpour F, Arpinar I B, Sheth A P. SwetoDblp ontology of computer science publications. Journal of Web Semantics, 2007, 5(3): 151–155.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hillyer M. Managing hierarchical data in MySQL. 2006,
  16. [16]
    RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C, 2004,
  17. [17]
    OWL: Web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax.W3C, 2004,
  18. [18]
    SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C, 2007,
  19. [19]
    Christophides V, Karvounarakis G, Plexousakis D, Scholl M, Tourtounis S. Optimizing taxonomic semantic Web queries using labeling schemes. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004, 1(2): pp.207–228.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Wu G, Zhang K, Liu C, Li J. Adapting prime number labeling scheme for directed acyclic graphs. In Proc. DASFAA, Singapore, April 12{15, 2006, pp.787–796.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Wu G. Research on key technologies of RDF graph data management [Ph.D. Dissertation]. Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University January 2008.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    RDF semantics. W3C, 2004,
  23. [23]
    Herman J ter Horst. Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. Journal of Web Semantics, 2005, 3(2/3): 79–115.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Horrocks I, Patel-Schneider P F. Reducing OWL entailment to description logic satisfiability. Journal of Web Semantics, 2004, 1: 345–357.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Muñoz S, Pérez J, Gutierrez C. Minimal deductive systems for RDF. In Proc. the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2007), Innsbruck, Austria, June 3–7, 2007.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Liu B, Hu B. An evaluation of RDF storage systems for large data applications. In Proc. the 1st International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge and Grid (SKG'05), Beijing, China, November 27–29, 2005, p.59.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Baader F, Sattler U. An overview of tableau algorithms for description logics. Studia Logica, Oct. 2001, 69(1): 5–40.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Horrocks I. The FaCT system. In Proc. the International Conference on Automated Reasoning with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX'98), London, UK, Springer-Verlag, May 5–8, 1998, pp.307–312.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Baader F, Calvanese D, McGuinness D L, Nardi D, Patel-Schneider P F (eds.). The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2003.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Oren E, Guéret C, Schlobach S. Anytime query answering in RDF through evolutionary algorithms. In Proc. the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Karsruhe, Germany, October 26–30, 2008, pp.98–113.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Seaborne A, Manjunath G. SPARQL/Update: A language for updating RDF graphs, 2008,

Copyright information

© Springer 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gang Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Juan-Zi Li
    • 2
  • Jian-Qiang Hu
    • 2
  • Ke-Hong Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and TechnologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations