Preserving Information Content in RDF Using Bounded Homomorphisms

  • Audun Stolpe
  • Martin G. Skjæveland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7295)

Abstract

The topic of study in the present paper is the class of RDF homomorphisms that substitute one predicate for another throughout a set of RDF triples, on the condition that the predicate in question is not also a subject or object. These maps turn out to be suitable for reasoning about similarities in information content between two or more RDF graphs. As such they are very useful e.g. for migrating data from one RDF vocabulary to another. In this paper we address a particular instance of this problem and try to provide an answer to the question of when we are licensed to say that data is being transformed, reused or merged in a non-distortive manner. We place this problem in the context of RDF and Linked Data, and study the problem in relation to SPARQL construct queries.

Keywords

Composition Function SPARQL Query Triple Pattern Graph Homomorphism Target Graph 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C., Pérez, J.: Foundations of RDF Databases. In: Tessaris, S., Franconi, E., Eiter, T., Gutierrez, C., Handschuh, S., Rousset, M.-C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) Reasoning Web. LNCS, vol. 5689, pp. 158–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baget, J.-F.: RDF Entailment as a Graph Homomorphism. In: Gil, Y., Motta, E., Benjamins, V.R., Musen, M.A. (eds.) ISWC 2005. LNCS, vol. 3729, pp. 82–96. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bleiholder, J., Naumann, F.: Data fusion. ACM Computing Surveys 41(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: semantics and query answering. Theoretical Computer Science 336, 89–124 (2005)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghilardi, S., Lutz, C., Wolter, F.: Did I Damage my Ontology? A Case for Conservative Extensions in Description Logics. In: Proc. of the 10th Int. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayes, P.: RDF Semantics. W3C Recommendation, W3C (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
  7. 7.
    Hutter, D.: Some Remarks on the Annotation %cons (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Makinson, D.C.: Logical Friendliness and Sympathy in Logic. In: Logica Universalis. Birkhäuser, Basel (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics of SPARQL. Technical report, Universidad de Chile, TR/DCC-2006-17 (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation, W3C (2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/
  11. 11.
    Stolpe, A., Skjæveland, M.G.: From Spreadsheets to 5-star Linked Data in the Cultural Heritage Domain: A Case Study of the Yellow List. In: Norsk Informatikkonferanse (NIK 2011), Tapir, pp. 13–24 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audun Stolpe
    • 1
  • Martin G. Skjæveland
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations