RDFS with Attribute Equations via SPARQL Rewriting

  • Stefan Bischof
  • Axel Polleres
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7882)


In addition to taxonomic knowledge about concepts and properties typically expressible in languages such as RDFS and OWL, implicit information in an RDF graph may be likewise determined by arithmetic equations. The main use case here is exploiting knowledge about functional dependencies among numerical attributes expressible by means of such equations. While some of this knowledge can be encoded in rule extensions to ontology languages, we provide an arguably more flexible framework that treats attribute equations as first class citizens in the ontology language. The combination of ontological reasoning and attribute equations is realized by extending query rewriting techniques already successfully applied for ontology languages such as (the DL-Lite-fragment of) RDFS or OWL, respectively. We deploy this technique for rewriting SPARQL queries and discuss the feasibility of alternative implementations, such as rule-based approaches.


Description Logic Attribute Equation Conjunctive Query SPARQL Query Ontology Language 
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.
    Arenas, M., Botoeva, E., Calvanese, D., Ryzhikov, V., Sherkhonov, E.: Representability in DL-LiteR knowledge base exchange. In: 25th Int’l DL Workshop, vol. 846, pp. 4–14 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Bruijn, J., Heymans, S.: Logical foundations of (e)RDF(S): Complexity and reasoning. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ISWC/ASWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 86–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lembo, D., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. Journal of Automated Reasoning 39(3), 385–429 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chekol, M.W., Euzenat, J., Genevès, P., Layaïda, N.: Sparql query containment under shi axioms. In: 26th AAAI Conf. (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frühwirth, T.W.: Constraint handling rules: the story so far. In: 8th PPDP, pp. 13–14 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glimm, B., Hogan, A., Krötzsch, M., Polleres, A.: OWL: Yet to arrive on the web of data? In: WWW 2012 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gottlob, G., Schwentick, T.: Rewriting ontological queries into small nonrecursive datalog programs. In: 13th Int’l KR Conf. (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: RACER system description. In: Goré, R.P., Leitsch, A., Nipkow, T. (eds.) IJCAR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2083, pp. 701–705. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Description logic systems with concrete domains: Applications for the semantic web. In: 10th Int’l KRDB Workshop (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C proposed rec., W3C (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayes, P.: RDF semantics. W3C rec., W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an owl rules language. In: 13th Int’l Conf. on World Wide Web (WWW 2004), pp. 723–731. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 subm., W3C (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kontchakov, R., Lutz, C., Toman, D., Wolter, F., Zakharyaschev, M.: The combined approach to ontology-based data access. In: 22nd IJCAI, pp. 2656–2661 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Motik, B., Sattler, U., Studer, R.: Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) 3(1), 41–60 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 34(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pérez-Urbina, H., Motik, B., Horrocks, I.: Tractable query answering and rewriting under description logic constraints. Journal of Applied Logic 8(2), 186–209 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poggi, A., Lembo, D., Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Rosati, R.: Linking data to ontologies. In: Spaccapietra, S. (ed.) Journal on Data Semantics X. LNCS, vol. 4900, pp. 133–173. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C rec., W3C (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ralph Hodgson, P.J.K.: Qudt - quantities, units, dimensions and data types in owl and xml (2011),
  21. 21.
    Rijgersberg, H., van Assem, M., Top, J.: Ontology of units of measure and related concepts. Semantic Web Journal (SWJ) 4(1), 3–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosati, R.: Prexto: Query rewriting under extensional constraints in DLlite. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 360–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosati, R., Almatelli, A.: Improving query answering over dl-lite ontologies. In: 12th Int’l KR Conf. (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    le Clément de Saint-Marcq, V., Deville, Y., Solnon, C., Champin, P.-A.: Castor: A constraint-based SPARQL engine with active filter processing. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 391–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt, M., Meier, M., Lausen, G.: Foundations of sparql query optimization. In: ICDT (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zimmermann, A., Lopes, N., Polleres, A., Straccia, U.: A general framework for representing, reasoning and querying with annotated semantic web data. Journal of Web Semantics (JWS) 12, 72–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Bischof
    • 1
    • 2
  • Axel Polleres
    • 1
  1. 1.Siemens AG ÖsterreichViennaAustria
  2. 2.Vienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations