International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and the Semantic Web

Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web pp 132-146 | Cite as

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

Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 518)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Ontological storage Benchmark Object-oriented applications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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. semanticweb.com, April 2010. http://semanticweb.com/empire-rdf-sparql-meet-jpa_b15617
  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). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2005.06.005, http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2924e60509d7e1b45c6f38eaef9a5c6bb/gromgull
  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). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=6011704 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. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/
  18. 18.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Motik, B., Grau, B.C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Direct Semantics. W3C recommendation, W3C, October 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-direct-semantics-20091027/
  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