Consistent RDF Updates with Correct Dense Deltas

  • Sana Al Azwari
  • John N. Wilson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9147)


RDF is widely used in the Semantic Web for representing ontology data. Many real world RDF collections are large and contain complex graph relationships that represent knowledge in a particular domain. Such large RDF collections evolve in consequence of their representation of the changing world. Although this data may be distributed over the Internet, it needs to be managed and updated in the face of such evolutionary changes. In view of the size of typical collections, it is important to derive efficient ways of propagating updates to distributed data stores. The contribution of this paper is a detailed analysis of the performance of RDF change detection techniques. In addition the work describes a new approach to maintaining the consistency of RDF by using knowledge embedded in the structure to generate efficient update transactions. The evaluation of this approach indicates that it reduces the overall update size at the cost of increasing the processing time needed to generate the transactions.


Resource Description Framework Resource Description Framework Data Resource Description Framework Graph Change Detection Technique Resource Description Framework Triple 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Al Azwari, S., Wilson, J.N.: The cost of reasoning with RDF updates. In: ICSC 2015, pp. 328–331. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cloran, R., Irwin, B.: XML digital signature and RDF. In: Information Society South Africa (ISSA 2005), July 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayes, P., McBride, B.: RDF semantics. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Im, D.H., Lee, S.W., Kim, H.J.: Backward inference and pruning for RDF change detection using RDBMS. J. Info. Science 39(2), 238–255 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web ontology language profiles, W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noy, N., Musen, M.: Promptdiff: a fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. AAAI/IAAI 2002, 744–750 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Papavasileiou, V., Flouris, G., Fundulaki, I., Kotzinos, D., Christophides, V.: High-level change detection in RDF(S) KBs. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 38, 1:1–1:42 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    PaPavaSSiliou, S., PaPagianni, C., DiStefano, S.: M2M interactions paradigm via volunteer computing and mobile crowdsensing. In: Misic, V., Misic, J. (eds.) Machine-to-machine communications: architectures, technology, standards, and applications, pp. 295–309. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Völkel, M., Groza, T.: SemVersion: An RDF-based ontology versioning system. In: Nunes, M., Isaas, P., Martnez, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference on WWW/Internet, p. 44. IADIS (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zeginis, D., Tzitzikas, Y., Christophides, V.: On computing deltas of RDF/S knowledge bases. ACM Trans. Web (TWEB) 5(3), 14 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations