Abstract

The last few years have brought a lot of changes in the RDF validation and integrity constraints in the Semantic Web environment, offering more and more options. This paper analyses the current state of knowledge on RDF validation and proposes requirementsL for RDF validation languages. It overviews and compares the previous approaches and development directions in RDF validation. It also points at the pros and cons of particular implementation scenarios.

Keywords

Validation Semantic Web RDF Integrity constraints 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank David Wood, co-chair of the RDF Working Group, for comments that greatly improved the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., Ives, Z.: DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ASWC/ISWC-2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 722–735. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T., Prud’hommeaux, E., Carothers, G.: Turtle - Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-turtle-20140225/
  3. 3.
    Bizer, C., Schultz, A.: The Berlin SPARQL benchmark. Int. J. Semant. Web Inf. Syst. (IJSWIS) 5(2), 1–24 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boneva, I., Labra Gayo, J.E., Hym, S., Prud’hommeau, E.G., Solbrig, H.R., Staworko, S.: Validating RDF with shape expressions. CoRR abs/1404.1270 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bosch, T., Eckert, K.: Requirements on RDF constraint formulation and validation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp. 95–108. Citeseer (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosch, T., Eckert, K.: Towards description set profiles for RDF using SPARQL as intermediate language. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications (DCMI 2014), pp. 129–137. Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.: RDF Schema 1.1. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/
  8. 8.
    Brickley, D., Miller, L.: FOAF vocabulary specification 0.99. Technical report FOAF Project, January 2014. http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20140114.html
  9. 9.
    Clark, J.: RELAX NG compact syntax. Committee specification, The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (2002). http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/relax-ng/compact-20021121.html
  10. 10.
    Clark, K., Sirin, E.: On RDF validation, stardog ICV, and assorted remarks. In: RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, MA, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coyle, K., Baker, T.: Dublin core application profiles. Separating validation from semantics. In: RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, MA, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cyganiak, R., Lanthaler, M., Wood, D.: RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/
  13. 13.
    Fischer, P.M., Lausen, G., Schätzle, A., Schmidt, M.: RDF constraint checking. In: EDBT/ICDT Workshops, pp. 205–212 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fürber, C., Hepp, M.: Using SPARQL and SPIN for data quality management on the semantic web. In: Abramowicz, W., Tolksdorf, R. (eds.) BIS 2010. LNBIP, vol. 47, pp. 35–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/
  16. 16.
    Jelliffe, R.: The schematron assertion language 1.5. Academia Sinica Computing Center (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knublauch, H.: Shapes constraint language (SHACL). W3C editor’s draft, World Wide Web Consortium, September 2014. http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
  18. 18.
    Knublauch, H., Hendle, J.A., Idehen, K.: SPIN - overview and motivation. W3C member submission, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2011. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-overview-20110222/
  19. 19.
    Kontokostas, D., Westphal, P., Auer, S., Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Cornelissen, R., Zaveri, A.: Test-driven evaluation of linked data quality. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 747–758. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labra Gayo, J., Prud’hommeaux, E., Solbrig, H., Rodríguez, J.: Validating and describing linked data portals using RDF shape expressions. In: Workshop on Linked Data Quality (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Adding integrity constraints to OWL. In: Third International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions 2007 (OWLED 2007), Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel-Schneider, P., Hayes, P.: RDF 1.1 semantics. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/
  23. 23.
    Pérez-Urbina, H., Sirin, E., Clark, K.: Validating RDF with OWL integrity constraints (2012). http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html
  24. 24.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Labra Gayo, J.E., Solbrig, H.: Shape expressions: an RDF validation and transformation language. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems (SEM 2014), NY, USA, pp. 32–40. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryman, A.: Resource shape 2.0. W3C member submission, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/
  26. 26.
    Ryman, A.G., Hors, A.L., Speicher, S.: OSLC resource shape: a language for defining constraints on linked data. In: LDOW, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 996. CEUR-WS.org (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simister, S., Brickley, D.: Simple application-specific constraints for RDF models. In: RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sirin, E., Tao, J.: Towards integrity constraints in OWL. In: OWLED, vol. 529 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sperberg-McQueen, M., Thompson, H., Peterson, D., Malhotra, A., Biron, P.V., Gao, S.: W3C XML schema definition language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: datatypes. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, April 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/
  30. 30.
    Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., McGuinness, D.L.: Integrity constraints in OWL. In: AAAI (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of InformaticsUniversity of BialystokBiałystokPoland

Personalised recommendations