SPARQL++ for Mapping Between RDF Vocabularies

  • Axel Polleres
  • François Scharffe
  • Roman Schindlauer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4803)

Abstract

Lightweight ontologies in the form of RDF vocabularies such as SIOC, FOAF, vCard, etc. are increasingly being used and exported by “serious” applications recently. Such vocabularies, together with query languages like SPARQL also allow to syndicate resulting RDF data from arbitrary Web sources and open the path to finally bringing the Semantic Web to operation mode. Considering, however, that many of the promoted lightweight ontologies overlap, the lack of suitable standards to describe these overlaps in a declarative fashion becomes evident. In this paper we argue that one does not necessarily need to delve into the huge body of research on ontology mapping for a solution, but SPARQL itself might — with extensions such as external functions and aggregates — serve as a basis for declaratively describing ontology mappings. We provide the semantic foundations and a path towards implementation for such a mapping language by means of a translation to Datalog with external predicates.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alkhateeb, F., Baget, J.-F., Euzenat, J.: Extending SPARQL with Regular Expression Patterns. Tech. Report 6191, Inst. National de Recherche en Informatique et Automatique (May 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borgida, A., Serafini, L.: Distributed Description Logics: Assimilating Information from Peer Sources. Journal of Data Semantics 1, 153–184 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bouquet, P., Giunchiglia, F., van Harmelen, F., Serafini, L., Stuckenschmidt, H.: C-OWL: Contextualizing Ontologies. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K.P., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, W., Kifer, M., Warren, D.: HiLog: A Foundation for Higher-Order Logic Programming. Journal of Logic Programming 15(3), 187–230 (1993)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Bruijn, J., Franconi, E., Tessaris, S.: Logical Reconstruction of Normative RDF. In: OWLED 2005. OWL: Experiences and Directions Workshop, Galway, Ireland (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Bruijn, J., Heymans, S.: A Semantic Framework for Language Layering in WSML. In: RR2007. First IntÍ Conf. on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Bruijn, J(eds.): Web Rule Language (WRL), W3C Member Submission (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Decker, S., et al.: TRIPLE - an RDF Rule Language with Context and Use Cases. In: W3C Workshop on Rule Languages for Interoperability, Washington D.C., USA (April 2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: Reasoning with Rules and Ontologies. In: Reasoning Web 2006, pp. 93–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Euzenat, J.: An API for Ontology Alignment. In: Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web Conference, Hiroshima, Japan, pp. 698–712 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Euzenat, J., Scharffe, F., Zimmerman, A.: Expressive Alignment Language and Implementation. Project Deliverable D2.2.10, Knowledge Web NoE (EU-IST-2004-507482) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G.: Recursive Aggregates in Disjunctive Logic Programs: Semantics and Complexity. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ghidini, C., Giunchiglia, F.: Local model semantics, or contextual reasoning = locality + compatibility. Artificial Intelligence 127(2), 221–259 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. Technical Report, W3C, W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M.: SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML, W3C Member Submission (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiefer, C., Bernstein, A., Lee, H.J., Klein, M., Stocker, M.: Semantic Process Retrieval with iSPARQL. In: ESWC 2007. 4th European Semantic Web Conference, Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical Foundations of Object-oriented and Frame-based Languages. Journal of the ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Malhotra, A., Melton, N. W.J.: (eds.) XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators, W3C Recommendation (January 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muñoz, S., Pérez, J., Gutierrez, C.: Minimal Deductive Systems for RDF. In: ESWC 2007. 4th European Semantic Web Conference, Innsbruck, Austria (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and Complexity of SPARQL. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 30–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polleres, A.: From SPARQL to Rules (and back). In: WWW 2007. 16th World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada (May 2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R.: dlvhex-sparql: A SPARQL-compliant Query Engine based on dlvhex. In: ALPSWS 2007. 2nd Int. Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Web Services, Porto, Portugal (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.:(eds.) SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Candidate Recommendation (June 2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scharffe, F., de Bruijn, J.: A Language to specify Mappings between Ontologies. In: IEEE SITIS2005. First Int. Conf. on Signal-Image Technology and Internet-Based SystemsGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schenk, S., Staab, S.: Networked rdf graphs. Tech. Report, Univ. Koblenz (2007), http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~sschenk/publications/2006/ngtr.pdf
  27. 27.
    Schindlauer, R.: Answer-Set Programming for the Semantic Web. PhD thesis, Vienna University of Technology (December 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ullman, J.: Principles of Database & Knowledge Base Systems. Comp.Science Press (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Axel Polleres
    • 1
  • François Scharffe
    • 2
  • Roman Schindlauer
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.DERI Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway 
  2. 2.Leopold-Franzens Universität InnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics, University of Calabria, 87030 Rende (CS)Italy
  4. 4.Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien 

Personalised recommendations