Advertisement

On Blank Nodes

  • Alejandro Mallea
  • Marcelo Arenas
  • Aidan Hogan
  • Axel Polleres
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7031)

Abstract

Blank nodes are defined in RDF as ‘existential variables’ in the same way that has been used before in mathematical logic. However, evidence suggests that actual usage of RDF does not follow this definition. In this paper we thoroughly cover the issue of blank nodes, from incomplete information in database theory, over different treatments of blank nodes across the W3C stack of RDF-related standards, to empirical analysis of RDF data publicly available on the Web. We then summarize alternative approaches to the problem, weighing up advantages and disadvantages, also discussing proposals for Skolemization.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Link Open Data Resource Description Framework Data Resource Description Framework Graph Existential Variable 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Arenas, M., Consens, M., Mallea, A.: Revisiting Blank Nodes in RDF to Avoid the Semantic Mismatch with SPARQL. In: RDF Next Steps Workshop (June 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arenas, M., Prud’hommeaux, E., Sequeda, J.: Direct mapping of relational data to RDF. W3C Working Draft (March 24, 2011), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdb-direct-mapping/
  3. 3.
    Beckett, D., McBride, B.: RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised). W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/
  4. 4.
    Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked Data – The Story So Far. Int. J. Semantic Web Inf. Syst. 5(3), 1–22 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buss, S.R.: On Herbrand’s Theorem. In: Leivant, D. (ed.) LCC 1994. LNCS, vol. 960, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, J.J.: Signing RDF graphs. In: Fensel, D., Sycara, K., Mylopoulos, J. (eds.) ISWC 2003. LNCS, vol. 2870, pp. 369–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Das, S., Sundara, S., Cyganiak, R.: R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language. W3C Working Draft (March 24, 2011), http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
  8. 8.
    Erling, O., Mikhailov, I.: RDF Support in the Virtuoso DBMS. In: Pellegrini, T., Auer, S., Tochtermann, K., Schaffert, S. (eds.) Networked Knowledge - Networked Media. SCI, vol. 221, pp. 7–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Franconi, E., de Bruijn, J., Tessaris, S.: Logical reconstruction of normative RDF. In: OWLED (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gogate, V., Dechter, R.: A Complete Anytime Algorithm for Treewidth. In: UAI, pp. 201–208 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grau, B.C., Motik, B., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation (October 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/
  12. 12.
    Grosof, B., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., Decker, S.: Description Logic Programs: Combining Logic Programs with Description Logic. In: WWW (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutierrez, C., Hurtado, C., Mendelzon, A.O.: Foundations of Semantic Web Databases. In: 23rd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART (June 2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heath, T., Bizer, C.: Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space, vol. 1. Morgan & Claypool (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogan, A.: Exploiting RDFS and OWL for Integrating Heterogeneous, Large-Scale, Linked Data Corpora. PhD thesis, DERI Galway (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly, P.J.: A congruence theorem for trees. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 7(1) (1957)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/
  19. 19.
    Manola, F., Miller, E., McBride, B.: RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation (February 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muñoz, S., Pérez, J., Gutierrez, C.: Simple and Efficient Minimal RDFS. J. Web Sem. 7(3), 220–234 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nottingham, M., Hammer-Lahav, E.: Defining Well-Known Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). RFC 5785 (April 2010), http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5785.txt
  22. 22.
    Pichler, R., Polleres, A., Wei, F., Woltran, S.: dRDF: Entailment for Domain-Restricted RDF. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 200–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  24. 24.
    Schneider, M.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-Based Semantics. W3C Recommendation (October 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-rdf-based-semantics/
  25. 25.
    Tarjan, R.E., van Leeuwen, J.: Worst-case analysis of set union algorithms. J. ACM 31(2), 245–281 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    ter Horst, H.J.: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J. of Web Sem. 3, 79–115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandro Mallea
    • 1
  • Marcelo Arenas
    • 1
  • Aidan Hogan
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencePontificia Universidad Católica de ChileChile
  2. 2.Digital Enterprise Research InstituteNational University of Ireland GalwayIreland
  3. 3.Siemens AG ÖsterreichViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations