SPARQL beyond Subgraph Matching

  • Birte Glimm
  • Markus Krötzsch
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6496)


We extend the Semantic Web query language SPARQL by defining the semantics of SPARQL queries under the entailment regimes of RDF, RDFS, and OWL. The proposed extensions are part of the SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes working draft which is currently being developed as part of the W3C standardization process of SPARQL 1.1. We review the conditions that SPARQL imposes on such extensions, discuss the practical difficulties of this task, and explicate the design choices underlying our proposals. In addition, we include an overview of current implementations and their underlying techniques.


Solution Mapping SPARQL Query Triple Pattern Active Graph Blank Node 
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.
    Beckett, D., Berners-Lee, T.: Turtle – Terse RDF Triple Language. W3C Team Submission (January 14, 2008),
  2. 2.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R., Wessel, M.: Querying the semantic web with Racer + nRQL. In: Proc. KI 2004 International Workshop on Applications of Description Logics (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hayes, P. (ed.): RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004),
  4. 4.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman & Hall/CRC (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ter Horst, H.J.: Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary. J. of Web Semantics 3(2-3), 79–115 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kifer, M., Boley, H. (eds.): RIF Overview. W3C Working Group Note (June 22, 2010),
  7. 7.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Cuenca Grau, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Direct Semantics. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  8. 8.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  9. 9.
    Patel-Schneider, P.F., Motik, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Mapping to RDF Graphs. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  10. 10.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 34(3), 1–45 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: nSPARQL: A navigational language for RDF. J. of Web Semantics (to appear, 2010),
  12. 12.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008),
  13. 13.
    Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Nominals, inverses, counting, and conjunctive queries. J. of Artificial Intelligence Research 39, 429–481 (2010), zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schneider, M. (ed.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: RDF-Based Semantics. W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009),
  15. 15.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B.: SPARQL-DL: SPARQL query for OWL-DL. In: Golbreich, C., Kalyanpur, A., Parsia, B. (eds.) Proc. OWLED 2007 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 258. (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stocker, M., Smith, M.: Owlgres: A scalable OWL reasoner. In: Dolbear, C., Ruttenberg, A., Sattler, U. (eds.) Proc. OWLED 2008 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 432. (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Broekstra, J., Amerfoort, A.: Time – space trade-offs in scaling up RDF Schema reasoning. In: Dean, M., Guo, Y., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Krishnaswamy, S., Pan, Z., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE 2005 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3807, pp. 172–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birte Glimm
    • 1
  • Markus Krötzsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Computing LaboratoryOxford UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations