Advertisement

A Proposal for Transactions in the Semantic Web

  • Ana Sofia Gomes
  • José Júlio Alferes
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7026)

Abstract

The success of the Semantic Web project has triggered the emergence of new challenges for the research community. Among them, relies the ability of evolving the web by means of actions and updates in accordance with some standard proposals as RIF or SPARQL-Update. However, from the moment that actions and updates are possible, the need to ensure properties regarding the outcome of performing such actions emerges. Moreover, this need also leaves open the specification of such properties and requirements that an intended solution should comply to.

In this paper we motivate the need for employing transactional properties in this new Web and delineate a proposal for the requirements that such solution should provide. Afterwards, we develop a logic, based on the well-known Transaction Logic, that partially achieves such requirements, as a first step of an ongoing work.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework External Action Process Algebra Communicate Sequential Process Situation Calculus 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alferes, J.J., Eckert, M., May, W.: Evolution and reactivity in the semantic web. In: REWERSE, pp. 161–200 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antoniou, G., van Harmelen, F.: A Semantic Web Primer. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey, J., Bry, F., Eckert, M., Patranjan, P.-L.: Flavours of xchange, a rule-based reactive language for the (semantic) web. In: RuleML, pp. 187–192 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrends, E., Fritzen, O., May, W., Schenk, F.: Combining eca rules with process algebras for the semantic web. In: RuleML, pp. 29–38 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behrends, E., Fritzen, O., May, W., Schenk, F.: Embedding event algebras and process for eca rules for the semantic web. Fundam. Inform. 82(3), 237–263 (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berners-Lee, T.: Semantic web road map (1998), http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html
  7. 7.
    Bertossi, L.E., Pinto, J., Valdivia, R.: Specifying active databases in the situation calculus. In: SCCC, pp. 32–39 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming. Technical Report CSRI-323, Computer Systems Research Institute, University of Toronto (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: Concurrency and communication in transaction logic. In: JICSLP, pp. 142–156 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: Results on reasoning about updates in transaction logic. Transactions and Change in Logic Databases, 166–196 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bry, F., Eckert, M.: Twelve theses on reactive rules for the web. In: Event Processing (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bry, F., Patranjan, P.-L.: Reactivity on the web: paradigms and applications of the language xchange. In: Preneel, B., Tavares, S. (eds.) SAC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3897, pp. 1645–1649. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viegas Damásio, C., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Sainte Marie, C., Hallmark, G., Paschke, A.: RIF Production Rule Dialect (June 2010), W3C Recommendation, http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-prd/
  15. 15.
    Garcia-Molina, H., Salem, K.: Sagas. SIGMOD 16, 249–259 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Parikh, R.: Process logic: Expressiveness, decidability, completeness. In: FOCS, pp. 129–142 (1980)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kifer, M.: Rule Interchange Format: The Framework. In: Calvanese, D., Lausen, G. (eds.) RR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5341, pp. 1–11. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sergot, M.J.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Comp. 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manola, F., Miller, E.: RDF Resource Description Framework. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/RDF/
  21. 21.
    May, W., Alferes, J.J., Amador, R.: Active rules in the semantic web: Dealing with language heterogeneity. In: RuleML, pp. 30–44 (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    May, W., Alferes, J.J., Bry, F.: Towards generic query, update, and event languages for the semantic web. In: Ohlbach, H.J., Schaffert, S. (eds.) PPSWR 2004. LNCS, vol. 3208, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarthy, J.: Situations, actions, and causal laws. Technical report, Stanford University, Reprinted in MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 410–417 (1968)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mcguinness, D.L., van Harmelen, F.: OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  25. 25.
    Mikalsen, T., Tai, S., Rouvellou, I.: Transactional attitudes: reliable composition of autonomous web services. In: WDMS (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communication Systems. LNCS, vol. 92, Springer, Heidelberg (1980)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milner, R.: Calculi for synchrony and asynchrony. Theor. Comput. Sci. 25, 267–310 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nakamura, M., Baral, C.: Invariance, maintenance, and other declarative objectives of triggers - a formal characterization of active databases. In: Computational Logic, pp. 1210–1224 (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pan, Y.: Will reliability kill the web service composition? Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University USA (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Papamarkos, G., Poulovassilis, A., Wood, P.T.: Event-condition-action rule languages for the semantic web. In: SWDB, pp. 309–327 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paton, N.W., Díaz, O.: Active database systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 31, 63–103 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation (June 2006), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  33. 33.
    Vaz, C., Ferreira, C.: Towards compensation correctness in interactive systems. In: WS-FM, pp. 161–177 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Widom, J.: The starburst active database rule system. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 8, 583–595 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zaniolo, C.: A unified semantics for active and deductive databases. In: Rules in Database Systems, pp. 271–287 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Sofia Gomes
    • 1
  • José Júlio Alferes
    • 1
  1. 1.CENTRIA and Departamento de Informática Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaUniversidade Nova de LisboaCaparicaPortugal

Personalised recommendations