Object-UOBM: An Ontological Benchmark for Object-Oriented Access

  • Martin Ledvinka
  • Petr Křemen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 518)


Although many applications built on top of market-ready ontology storages are generic and lack dependence on the particular application domain, most users prefer applications tailored to their particular task. Such applications are typically built using object-oriented paradigm that accesses data differently than generic applications. In this paper, we define a benchmark consisting of an ontology and ontological queries tailored for testing suitability of ontological storages for object-oriented access. We present results of experiments on several state-of-the-art ontological storages and discuss their suitability for the purpose of object-oriented application access.


Ontological storage Benchmark Object-oriented applications 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bishop, B., Kiryakov, A., Ognyanoff, D., Peikov, I., Tashev, Z., Velkov, R.: OWLIM: A family of scalable semantic repositories. Semantic Web - Interoperability, Usability, Applicability (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bizer, C., Schultz, A.: The Berlin SPARQL benchmark. International Journal On Semantic Web and Information Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broekstra, J., Kampman, A., van Harmelen, F.: Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In: Horrocks, I., Hendler, J. (eds.) ISWC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2342, pp. 54–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2002) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web conference (Alternate Track Papers & Posters), pp. 74–83 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia-Castro, R.: Benchmarking semantic web technology. Studies on the Semantic Web. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gearon, P., Passant, A., Polleres, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Update. Tech. rep., W3C (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grove, M.: Empire: RDF & SPARQL Meet JPA., April 2010.
  8. 8.
    Guo, Y., Pan, Z., Heflin, J.: LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics 3(2–3), 158–182 (2005).,
  9. 9.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 query language. Tech. rep., W3C (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    JCP: JSR 317: Java\(^{TM}\) Persistence API, Version 2.0 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Křemen, P.: Building Ontology-Based Information Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Czech Technical University, Prague (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Křemen, P., Kouba, Z.: Ontology-driven information system design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Part C 42(3), 334–344 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ledvinka, M., Křemen, P.: JOPA: developing ontology-based information systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference Znalosti 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ledvinka, M., Křemen, P.: JOPA: accessing ontologies in an object-oriented way. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ledvinka, M., Křemen, P.: Object-UOBM: An Ontological Benchmark for Object-oriented Access. Tech. rep., Czech Technical University in Prague (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma, L., Yang, Y., Qiu, Z., Xie, G.T., 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motik, B., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C recommendation, W3C, October 2009.
  18. 18.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Motik, B., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics. W3C recommendation, W3C, October 2009.
  19. 19.
    Schmidt, M., Meier, M., Lausen, G.: Foundations of sparql query optimization. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Database Theory, ICDT 2010, pp. 4–33. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical OWL-DL reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5(2), June 2007Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhou, Y., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Banerjee, J.: Making the most of your triple store: query answering in OWL 2 using an RL reasoner. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Czech Technical University in PraguePragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations