Advertisement

Parallelization of Conjunctive Query Answering over Ontologies

  • E. Patrick ShironoshitaEmail author
  • Da Zhang
  • Mansur R. Kabuka
  • Jia Xu
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 795)

Abstract

Efficient query answering over Description Logic (DL) ontologies with very large datasets is becoming increasingly vital. Recent years have seen the development of various approaches to ABox partitioning to enable parallel processing. Instance checking using the enhanced most specific concept (MSC) method is a particularly promising approach. The applicability of these distributed reasoning methods to typical ontologies has been shown mainly through anecdotal observation. In this paper, we present a parallelizable, enhanced MSC method for the answering of ABox conjunctive queries, using a set of syntactic conditions that permit querying of large practical ontologies in reasonable time, and combining it with pattern matching to answer queries over role assertions. We also present execution time and efficiency of an implementation deployed over computing clusters of various sizes, showing the ability of the method to process instance checking for large scale datasets.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by grant # R44GM097851 from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

References

  1. 1.
    Horrocks, I.: Ontologies and the semantic web. Commun. ACM 51(12), 58–67 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Data complexity of query answering in description logics. Artif. Intell. 195, 335–360 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Möller, R., Haarslev, V., Wessel, M.: On the scalability of description logic instance retrieval. In: Freksa, C., Kohlhase, M., Schill, K. (eds.) KI 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4314, pp. 188–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69912-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Motik, B., Shearer, R., Horrocks, I.: Optimized reasoning in description logics using hypertableaux. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 67–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73595-3_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Priya, S., Guo, Y., Spear, M., Heflin, J.: Partitioning OWL knowledge bases for parallel reasoning, pp. 108–115. IEEE, June 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donini, F.M.: Complexity of reasoning. In: Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, pp. 96–136. Cambridge University Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. arXiv:1111.0049 [cs], October 2011
  8. 8.
    Xu, J., Shironoshita, P., Visser, U., John, N., Kabuka, M.: Extract ABox modules for efficient ontology querying. arXiv:1305.4859 [cs], May 2013
  9. 9.
    Xu, J., Shironoshita, P., Visser, U., John, N., Kabuka, M.: Module extraction for efficient object queries over ontologies with large ABoxes. AIA 2(1), 8–31 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wandelt, S., Möller, R.: Towards ABox modularization of semi-expressive description logics. Appl. Ontol. 7(2), 133–167 (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, J., Shironoshita, P., Visser, U., John, N., Kabuka, M.: Converting instance checking to subsumption: a rethink for object queries over practical ontologies. Int. J. Intell. Sci. 05(01), 44–62 (2015). arXiv:1412.7585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nebel, B.: Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 422. Springer, Heidelberg (1990).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0016445CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donini, F., Era, A.: Most specific concepts for knowledge bases with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of CIKM, Baltimore, MD, USA, pp. 545–551, November 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donini, F.M., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Schaerf, A.: Deduction in concept languages: from subsumption to instance checking. J. Logic Comput. 4(4), 423–452 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Tessaris, S.: A conjunctive query language for description logic ABoxes. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 399–404 (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schaerf, A.: Reasoning with individuals in concept languages. Data Knowl. Eng. 13(2), 141–176 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kollia, I., Glimm, B., Horrocks, I.: SPARQL query answering over OWL ontologies. In: Antoniou, G., Grobelnik, M., Simperl, E., Parsia, B., Plexousakis, D., De Leenheer, P., Pan, J. (eds.) ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6643, pp. 382–396. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21034-1_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jing, Y., Jeong, D., Baik, D.K.: SPARQL graph pattern rewriting for OWL-DL inference queries. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 20(2), 243–262 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: SPARQL-DL: SPARQL query for OWL-DL. In: In 3rd OWL Experiences and Directions Workshop (OWLED-2007) (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myung, J., Yeon, J., Lee, S.: SPARQL basic graph pattern processing with iterative MapReduce. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Workshop on Massive Data Analytics on the Cloud, MDAC 2010, pp. 6:1–6:6. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schätzle, A., Przyjaciel-Zablocki, M., Hornung, T., Lausen, G.: PigSPARQL: a SPARQL query processing baseline for big data. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demonstrations Track), ISWC-PD 2013, Aachen, Germany, vol. 1035, pp. 241–244. CEUR-WS.org (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Artale, A., Calvanese, D., Kontchakov, R., Zakharyaschev, M.: The DL-lite family and relations. J. Artif. Int. Res. 36(1), 1–69 (2009)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Xie, G., Pan, Y., Liu, S.: Towards a complete OWL ontology benchmark. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 125–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/11762256_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: a benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Web Semant. 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    W3C: Large Triple Stores - W3c Wiki (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Patrick Shironoshita
    • 1
    Email author
  • Da Zhang
    • 2
  • Mansur R. Kabuka
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jia Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.INFOTECH Soft, Inc.MiamiUSA
  2. 2.University of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations