SPARQL Query Answering over OWL Ontologies

  • Ilianna Kollia
  • Birte Glimm
  • Ian Horrocks
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6643)


The SPARQL query language is currently being extended by W3C with so-called entailment regimes, which define how queries are evaluated under more expressive semantics than SPARQL’s standard simple entailment. We describe a sound and complete algorithm for the OWL Direct Semantics entailment regime. The queries of the regime are very expressive since variables can occur within complex class expressions and can also bind to class or property names. We propose several novel optimizations such as strategies for determining a good query execution order, query rewriting techniques, and show how specialized OWL reasoning tasks and the class and property hierarchy can be used to reduce the query execution time. We provide a prototypical implementation and evaluate the efficiency of the proposed optimizations. For standard conjunctive queries our system performs comparably to already deployed systems. For complex queries an improvement of up to three orders of magnitude can be observed.


Solution Mapping Conjunctive Query SPARQL Query Triple Pattern Query Execution Time 
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.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T.: Turtle – Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C Team Submission (January 14, 2008),
  2. 2.
    Glimm, B., Krötzsch, M.: SPARQL beyond subgraph matching. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Pan, Y., Hitzler, P., Mika, P., Zhang, L., Pan, J.Z., Horrocks, I., Glimm, B. (eds.) ISWC 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6496, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. J. Web Semantics 3(2-3), 158–182 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Primer. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  5. 5.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horridge, M., Bechhofer, S.: The OWL API: A Java API for working with OWL 2 ontologies. In: Patel-Schneider, P.F., Hoekstra, R. (eds.) Proc. OWLED 2009 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 529, (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Cuenca Grau, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  8. 8.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  9. 9.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Motik, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Mapping to RDF Graphs. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  10. 10.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008),
  11. 11.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: SPARQL-DL: SPARQL query for OWL-DL. In: Golbreich, C., Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B. (eds.) Proc. OWLED 2007 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 258, (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilianna Kollia
    • 1
  • Birte Glimm
    • 2
  • Ian Horrocks
    • 2
  1. 1.ECE SchoolNational Technical University of AthensGreece
  2. 2.Oxford University Computing LaboratoryUK

Personalised recommendations