Updating RDFS ABoxes and TBoxes in SPARQL

  • Albin Ahmeti
  • Diego Calvanese
  • Axel Polleres
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8796)

Abstract

Updates in RDF stores have recently been standardised in the SPARQL 1.1 Update specification. However, computing entailed answers by ontologies is usually treated orthogonally to updates in triple stores. Even the W3C SPARQL 1.1 Update and SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes specifications explicitly exclude a standard behaviour for entailment regimes other than simple entailment in the context of updates. In this paper, we take a first step to close this gap. We define a fragment of SPARQL basic graph patterns corresponding to (the RDFS fragment of) DL-Lite and the corresponding SPARQL update language, dealing with updates both of ABox and of TBox statements. We discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. In particular, we treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. We have implemented all semantics prototypically on top of an off-the-shelf triple store and present some indications on practical feasibility.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmeti, A., Calvanese, D., Polleres, A.: Updating RDFS ABoxes and TBoxes in SPARQL. CoRR Tech. Rep. arXiv:1403.7248 (2014), http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7248
  2. 2.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T., Prud’hommeaux, E., Carothers, G.: RDF 1.1 Turtle – Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C Rec. (February 2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bishop, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Peikov, I., Tashev, Z., Velkov, R.: OWLIM: A family of scalable semantic repositories. Semantic Web J. 2(1), 33–42 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J. of Automated Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calvanese, D., Kharlamov, E., Nutt, W., Zheleznyakov, D.: Evolution of DL-Lite knowledge bases. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 112–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceri, S., Widom, J.: Deriving incremental production rules for deductive data. Information Systems 19(6), 467–490 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Franconi, E., Gutierrez, C., Mosca, A., Pirrò, G., Rosati, R.: The logic of extensional RDFS. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 101–116. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gearon, P., Passant, A., Polleres, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Update. W3C Rec. (March 2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glimm, B., Ogbuji, C.: SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Rec. (March 2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta, A., Mumick, I.S., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Maintaining views incrementally. In: Proc. of ACM SIGMOD, pp. 157–166 (1993)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gutierrez, C., Hurtado, C., Vaisman, A.: RDFS update: From theory to practice. In: Antoniou, G., Grobelnik, M., Simperl, E., Parsia, B., Plexousakis, D., De Leenheer, P., Pan, J. (eds.) ESWC 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6644, pp. 93–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Rec. (March 2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. W3C Rec. (February 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.O.: A unified view of propositional knowledge base updates. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 1413–1419 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kontchakov, R., Rodríguez-Muro, M., Zakharyaschev, M.: Ontology-based data access with databases: A short course. In: Rudolph, S., Gottlob, G., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) Reasoning Weg 2013. LNCS, vol. 8067, pp. 194–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotowski, J., Bry, F., Brodt, S.: Reasoning as axioms change - Incremental view maintenance reconsidered. In: Rudolph, S., Gutierrez, C. (eds.) RR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6902, pp. 139–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mallea, A., Arenas, M., Hogan, A., Polleres, A.: On blank nodes. In: Aroyo, L., Welty, C., Alani, H., Taylor, J., Bernstein, A., Kagal, L., Noy, N., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7031, pp. 421–437. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motik, B.: On the properties of metamodeling in OWL. J. of Logic and Computation 17(4), 617–637 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muñoz, S., Pérez, J., Gutierrez, C.: Minimal deductive systems for RDF. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noy, N.F., Klein, M.C.A.: Ontology evolution: Not the same as schema evolution. Knowledge and Information Systems 6(4), 428–440 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans. on Database Systems 34(3), 16:1–16:45 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pichler, R., Polleres, A., Skritek, S., Woltran, S.: Complexity of redundancy detection on RDF graphs in the presence of rules, constraints, and queries. Semantic Web J. 4(4) (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Polleres, A., Hogan, A., Delbru, R., Umbrich, J.: RDFS and OWL reasoning for linked data. In: Rudolph, S., Gottlob, G., Horrocks, I., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) Reasoning Weg 2013. LNCS, vol. 8067, pp. 91–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Rec. (January 2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ullman, J.D.: Principles of Database and Knowledge-Base Systems, vol. 1. Computer Science Press (1988)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Urbani, J., Margara, A., Jacobs, C., van Harmelen, F., Bal, H.: DynamiTE: Parallel materialization of dynamic RDF data. In: Alani, H., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2013, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8218, pp. 657–672. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Volz, R., Staab, S., Motik, B.: Incrementally maintaining materializations of ontologies stored in logic databases. In: Spaccapietra, S., Bertino, E., Jajodia, S., King, R., McLeod, D., Orlowska, M.E., Strous, L. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics II. LNCS, vol. 3360, pp. 1–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winslett, M.: Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge University Press (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Albin Ahmeti
    • 1
  • Diego Calvanese
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 3
  1. 1.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer ScienceFree University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  3. 3.Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations