Locking for Concurrent Transactions on Ontologies

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7882)


Collaborative editing on large-scale ontologies imposes serious demands on concurrent modifications and conflict resolution. In order to enable robust handling of concurrent modifications, we propose a locking-based approach that ensures independent transactions to simultaneously work on an ontology while blocking those transactions that might influence other transactions. In the logical context of ontologies, dependence and independence of transactions do not only rely on the single data items that are modified, but also on the inferences drawn from these items. In order to address this issue, we utilize logical modularization of ontologies and lock the parts of the ontology that share inferential dependencies for an ongoing transaction. We compare and evaluate modularization and the naive approach of locking the whole ontology for each transaction and analyze the trade-off between the time needed for computing locks and the time gained by running transactions concurrently.


Description Logic Total Execution Time Average Execution Time Ontology Development Transaction Management 
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.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook. Cambridge University Press (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernstein, P.A., Newcomer, E.: Principles of Transaction Processing. Morgan Kaufmann (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstein, P.A., Hadzilacos, V., Goodman, N.: Concurrency Control and Recovery in Database Systems. Addison-Wesley (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chaudhri, V.K., Hadzilacos, V., Mylopoulos, J.: Concurrency Control for Knowledge Bases. In: Nebel, B., Rich, C., Swartout, W.R. (eds.) KR, pp. 762–773. Morgan Kaufmann (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Falconer, S.M., Tudorache, T., Noy, N.F.: An analysis of collaborative patterns in large-scale ontology development projects. In: K-CAP, pp. 25–32. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Modular Reuse of Ontologies: Theory and Practice. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31, 273–318 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Kazakov, Y., Sattler, U.: Extracting Modules from Ontologies: A Logic-Based Approach. In: Stuckenschmidt, H., Parent, C., Spaccapietra, S. (eds.) Modular Ontologies. LNCS, vol. 5445, pp. 159–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Rudolph, S.: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer. W3C Recommendation 27, 1–123 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jiménez-Ruiz, E., Grau, B.C., Horrocks, I., Llavori, R.B.: Supporting concurrent ontology development: Framework, algorithms and tool. Data Knowl. Eng. 70(1), 146–164 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karp, P.D., Chaudhri, V.K., Paley, S.M.: A Collaborative Environment for Authoring Large Knowledge Bases. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 13(3), 155–194 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noy, N.F., Musen, M.A.: Specifying Ontology Views by Traversal. In: McIlraith, S.A., Plexousakis, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.) ISWC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3298, pp. 713–725. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qi, G., Yang, F.: A Survey of Revision Approaches in Description Logics. In: Calvanese, D., Lausen, G. (eds.) RR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5341, pp. 74–88. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.L.: A methodology for asynchronous multi-user editing of semantic web ontologies. In: Sleeman, D.H., Barker, K. (eds.) K-CAP, pp. 127–134. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seidenberg, J., Rector, A.L.: Web ontology segmentation: analysis, classification and use. In: Carr, L., De Roure, D., Iyengar, A., Goble, C.A., Dahlin, M. (eds.) WWW, pp. 13–22. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tudorache, T., Falconer, S., Noy, N.F., Nyulas, C., Üstün, T.B., Storey, M.-A., Musen, M.A.: Ontology development for the masses: Creating ICD-11 in webProtégé. In: Cimiano, P., Pinto, H.S. (eds.) EKAW 2010. LNCS, vol. 6317, pp. 74–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Del Vescovo, C., Klinov, P., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T., Tsarkov, D.: Syntactic vs. semantic locality: How good is a cheap approximation? CoRR, abs/1207.1641 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Del Vescovo, C., Parsia, B., Sattler, U., Schneider, T.: The modular structure of an ontology: Atomic decomposition and module count. In: WoMO, vol. 230, pp. 25–39. IOS Press (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WeST – Institute for Web Science and TechnologiesUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations