NdFluents: An Ontology for Annotated Statements with Inference Preservation

  • José M. Giménez-GarcíaEmail author
  • Antoine Zimmermann
  • Pierre Maret
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10249)


RDF provides the means to publish, link, and consume heterogeneous information on the Web of Data, whereas OWL allows the construction of ontologies and inference of new information that is implicit in the data. Annotating RDF data with additional information, such as provenance, trustworthiness, or temporal validity is becoming more and more important in recent times; however, it is possible to natively represent only binary (or dyadic) relations between entities in RDF and OWL. While there are some approaches to represent metadata on RDF, they lose most of the reasoning power of OWL. In this paper we present an extension of Welty and Fikes’ 4dFluents ontology—on associating temporal validity to statements—to any number of dimensions, provide guidelines and design patterns to implement it on actual data, and compare its reasoning power with alternative representations.


Annotations Contexts Metadata Ontologies OWL RDF Reasoning Reification 



This work is supported by funding from the EU H2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant No 642795, and from ANR grant 14-CE24-0029 for project OpenSensingCity. Authors would like to thank Chris Welty for his supportive comments, and Amro Najjar for his suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Carothers, G.: RDF 1.1 N-Quads: a line-based syntax for RDF datasets. W3C Recommendation (2014).
  2. 2.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: A multi-dimensional comparison of ontology design patterns for representing n-ary relations. In: Emde Boas, P., Groen, F.C.A., Italiano, G.F., Nawrocki, J., Sack, H. (eds.) SOFSEM 2013. LNCS, vol. 7741, pp. 86–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35843-2_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giménez-García, J.M., Zimmermann, A., Maret, P.: NdFluents: A multi-dimensional contexts ontology. Technical report, Université Jean Monnet (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hartig, O., Thompson, B.: Foundations of an alternative approach to reification in RDF. CoRR (2014).
  5. 5.
    Hernández, D., Hogan, A., Krötzsch, M., Reifying, R.D.F.: What works well with wikidata? In: 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hernández, D., Hogan, A., Riveros, C., Rojas, C., Zerega, E.: Querying wikidata: comparing SPARQL, relational and graph databases. In: Groth, P., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9982, pp. 88–103. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46547-0_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., Dean, M., et al.: SWRL: A semantic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C Member Submission (2004).
  8. 8.
    Kifer, M., Boley, H.: RIF overview. W3C Working Draft, W3C, October 2009 (2013).
  9. 9.
    Masolo, C., Guizzardi, G., Vieu, L., Bottazzi, E., Ferrario, R.: Relational roles and qua-individuals. In: AAAI Fall Symposium on Roles, an Interdisciplinary Perspective (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nardi, D., Brachman, R.J., et al.: An introduction to description logics. In: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nguyen, V., Bodenreider, O., Sheth, A.P.: Don’t like RDF reification? Making statements about statements using singleton property. In: 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Noy, N., Rector, A., Hayes, P., Welty, C.: Defining n-ary relations on the semantic web. W3C Working Group Note (4) (2006).
  13. 13.
    Scheuermann, A., Motta, E., Mulholland, P., Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: An empirical perspective on representing time. In: 7th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ter Horst, H.J.: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J. Web Seman. 3(2–3), 79–115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Welty, C., Slices, C.: Representing contexts in OWL. In: Workshop on Ontology Patterns (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welty, C., Fikes, R.: A reusable ontology for fluents in OWL. In: 1st International Conference of Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS) (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zamborlini, V., Guizzardi, G.: On the representation of temporally changing information in OWL. In: Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference Workshops (EDOCW) (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zamborlini, V., Guizzardi, G.: An ontologically-founded reification approach for representing temporally changing information in OWL. In: 11th International Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (COMMONSENSE) (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zimmermann, A.: RDF 1.1: On semantics of RDF datasets (2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • José M. Giménez-García
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antoine Zimmermann
    • 2
  • Pierre Maret
    • 1
  1. 1.Université de Lyon, CNRS, UMR 5516, Laboratoire Hubert-CurienSaint-ÉtienneFrance
  2. 2.Université de Lyon, MINES Saint-Étienne, CNRS, Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR 5516Saint-ÉtienneFrance

Personalised recommendations