Advertisement

Supporting Arbitrary Custom Datatypes in RDF and SPARQL

  • Maxime LefrançoisEmail author
  • Antoine Zimmermann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9678)

Abstract

In the Resource Description Framework, literals are composed of a UNICODE string (the lexical form), a datatype IRI, and optionally, when the datatype IRI is rdf:langString, a language tag. Any IRI can take the place of a datatype IRI, but the specification only defines the precise meaning of a literal when the datatype IRI is among a predefined subset. Custom datatypes have reported use on the Web of Data, and show some advantages in representing some classical structures. Yet, their support by RDF processors is rare and implementation specific. In this paper, we first present the minimal set of functions that should be defined in order to make a custom datatype usable in query answering and reasoning. Based on this, we discuss solutions that would enable: (i) data publishers to publish the definition of arbitrary custom datatypes on the Web, and (ii) generic RDF processor or SPARQL query engine to discover custom datatypes on-the-fly, and to perform operations on them accordingly. Finally, we detail a concrete solution that targets arbitrarily complex custom datatypes, we overview its implementation in Jena and ARQ, and we report the results of an experiment on a real world DBpedia use case.

Keywords

Literals Datatypes RDF Linked data 

References

  1. 1.
    Quantities, Units, Dimensions, Values (QUDV). SysML 1.2 Revision Task Force Working draft, Object Management Group, 30 October 2009Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bermudez, L.: The unified code for units of measure in OWL. OWL Ontology (2006). https://marinemetadata.org/files/mmi/ontologies/ucum, accessed 12/04/2016
  3. 3.
    Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., Lanthaler, M.: RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation, 25 February 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Bruijn, J., Heymans, S.: Logical foundations of RDF(S) with datatypes. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 38, 535–568 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emmons, I., Collier, S., Garlapati, M., Dean, M.: RDF literal data types in practice. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Scalable Semantic Web Knowledge Base Systems, vol. 1 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Query Language - W3C Working Draft 5. W3C Working Draft, W3C, 5 January 2012Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hayes, P., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: RDF 1.1 Semantics, W3C Recommendation 25. W3C Recommendation, W3C, 25 February 2014Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hodgson, R., Keller, P.J., Hodges, J., Spivak, J.: QUDT - Quantities, Units. Dimensions and Data Types Ontologies. Technical report, NASA (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hogan, A., Arenas, M., Mallea, A., Polleres, A.: Everything you always wanted to know about blank nodes. J. Web Semant. 27, 42–69 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Motik, B., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles (2nd edn.). W3C Recommendation, W3C, 11 December 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Perry, M., Herring, J.: OGC GeoSPARQL - A Geographic Query Language for RDF Data. Ogc implementation standard, Open Geospatial Consortium, 10 September 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peterson, D., Gao, S., Malhotra, A., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Thompson, H.S.: W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes, W3C Recommendation, W3C, 5 April 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Polo, L., Berrueta, D.: MUO - Measurement Units Ontology, Working Draft DD April 2008. Working draft, Fundación CTIC (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rijgersberg, H., van Assem, M., Top, J.L.: Ontology of units of measure and related concepts. Semant. Web J. 4(1), 3–13 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shadow, G., McDonald, C.J.: The Unified Code for Units of Measure. Technical report, Regenstrief Institute Inc., 22 October 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    W3C OWLWorking Group: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Document Overview (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012. Technical report, W3C (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams, G.: Extensible SPARQL functions with embedded javascript. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École Nationale Supérieure des Mines, FAYOL-ENSMSE, Laboratoire Hubert CurienSaint-ÉtienneFrance

Personalised recommendations