RDF Query and Inference in Prolog

  • M. B. AlvesEmail author
  • C. V. Damásio
  • N. Correia
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 649)


It is presented a system that allows the combination of a declarative language with a Semantic Web framework, namely, the Jena framework ( and XSB Prolog using InterProlog [3], a library allowing the development of combined Java+Prolog applications. Our library allows RDF and SPARQL queries in Prolog predicates. In this way, we can develop Semantic Web applications that makes use of the power of declarative languages to construct sophisticated rule systems within Semantic Web environments. Benchmark results are presented, showing the practical impact of the use of the system.


Resource Description Framework Triple Pattern Declarative Language Resource Description Framework Data Resource Description Framework Graph 
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.
    Alves, M.B., Damásio, C.V., Correia, N.: SPARQL commands in Jena rules. In: Klinov, P., et al. (eds.) KESW 2015. CCIS, vol. 518, pp. 253–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bechhofer, S., van Harmelen, F., Hendler, J., Horrocks, I., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneijder, P., Stein, L.A.: OWL web ontology language reference, 10 February 2004Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calejo, M.: InterProlog: towards a declarative embedding of logic programming in Java. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 714–717. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fortineau, V., Paviot, T., Louis-Sidney, L., Lamouri, S.: SWRL as a rule language for ontology-based models in power plant design. In: Rivest, L., Bouras, A., Louhichi, B. (eds.) Product Lifecycle Management. Towards Knowledge-Rich Enterprises, pp. 588–597. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: Lubm: a benchmark for owl knowledge base systems. Web Semant 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P., Bechhofer, S., Tsarkov, D.: Owl rules: a proposal and prototype implementation. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 3(1), 23–40 (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nejdl, W., Wolpers, M., Capelle, C.: The RDF schema specification revisited (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: Sparql query language for RDF. Latest version available as,
  9. 9.
    Tauberer, J.: What is RDF (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vassiliadis, V., Wielemaker, J., Mungall, C.: Processing OWL2 ontologies using Thea: an application of logic programming. In: OWLED 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wielemaker, J., Hildebrand, M., van Ossenbruggen, J., Schreiber, G.: Thesaurus-based search in large heterogeneous collections. In: Sheth, A.P., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 695–708. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CENTRIAUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal
  2. 2.ESTGInstituto Politécnico de Viana do CasteloViana do CasteloPortugal
  3. 3.CITIUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations