Abstract
The expansion of knowledge graphs (KGs) by new triples is an elementary process, which is needed for enriching and extending the represented knowledge. In order to function correctly and reliably, it is of utmost importance for many knowledge-driven applications that the expansion only adds semantically correct statements to the KG. Existing validation methods however, including description logic reasoning, SHACL and ShEx, can only detect wrong statements after they have materialized in the KG. They are of no or limited value for preventing errors when expanding KGs. To solve that problem, Property Assertion Constraints (PAC) are introduced as main contribution of this paper. For the context of a given instance and property, a PAC can identify all valid instances, which result in semantically correct property value assertions. By only offering them to users as options to choose from, the creation of semantically wrong statements is prevented and users can greatly benefit from this informed preselection. The main principle of PAC consists in the restriction of a property’s range definition by additional logic, which needs to be fulfilled additionally to the range. Similar to SHACL, PAC utilize SPARQL for defining the constraints, which can comprise almost arbitrarily complex conditions or business logic. The fundamental difference to SHACL and other integrity constraint approaches however is that PAC quasi negate the principle of formalizing constraints from constraints that detect erroneous (already materialized) facts into constraints that do the complete opposite, namely finding all semantically correct assertions (before materializing them).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Remark: When reasoning is enabled for the KG, line 7 is obsolete and line 8 can use the ?superClass variable directly, as the reasoner can then take care of the class membership checking.
References
Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). W3C Recommendation (2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Prud’hommeaux, E., Boneva, I., Gayo, J.E.L., Kellogg, G.: Shape Expressions Language 2.1 (ShEx). Final Community Group Report 8 (2019). http://shex.io/shex-semantics/. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Huaman, E., Kärle, E., Fensel, D.: Knowledge Graph Validation (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01389. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Paulheim, H.: Knowledge graph refinement: a survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semant. Web 8(3), 489–508 (2016)
Melo, A., Paulheim, P.: Detection of relation assertion errors in knowledge graphs. In: Proceedings of the Knowledge Capture Conference (K-CAP 2017), Austin, Texas, US, pp. 1–8 (2017)
Polleres, A., Hogan, A., Harth, A., Decker, S.: Can we ever catch up with the Web? Semant. Web 1(1), 45–52 (2010)
Ji, Q., Gao, Z., Huang, Z.: Reasoning with noisy semantic data. In: Antoniou, G., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6644, pp. 497–502. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21064-8_42
Knublauch, H., Hendler, J.A., Idehen, K.: SPIN – Overview and Motivation. W3C Member Submission (2011). https://www.w3.org/Submission/spin-overview/. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Clark & Parsia LLC: Validation Constraints. The Stardog Manual. http://stage.docs.stardog.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2.2.4/#_validating_constraints. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Ryman, A., Hors, A.L., Speicher, S.: OSLC resource shape: a language for defining constraints on linked data. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW 2013), Florence, Italy, pp. 1549–1550 (2013)
Fischer, P.M., Lausen, G., Schätzle, A.: RDF constraint checking. In: Proceedings of the EDBT/ICDT 2015 Joint Conference, Brussels, Belgium (2015)
Shiralkar, P., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., Ciampaglia. G.L.: Finding streams in knowledge graphs to support fact checking. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM2017), New Orleans, USA, pp. 859–864 (2017)
Syed, Z.H., Röder, M., Ngomo, A.-C.: Unsupervised discovery of corroborative paths for fact validation. In: Ghidini, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11778, pp. 630–646. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_36
Thorne, J., Vlachos, A.: An extensible framework for verification of numerical claims. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL2017), Valencia, Spain, pp. 37–40 (2017)
Wienand, D., Paulheim, H.: Detecting incorrect numerical data in DBpedia. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 504–518. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07443-6_34
Shi, B., Weninger, T.: Discriminative predicate path mining for fact checking in knowledge graphs. Knowl. Based Syst. 104(2016), 123–133 (2016)
Melo, A., Paulheim, H.: Automatic detection of relation assertion errors and induction of relation constraints. Semant. Web 11(5), 801–830 (2020)
Feigenbaum, L., Williams, G.T., Clark, K.G., Torres, E.: SPARQL 1.1 Protocol. W3C Recommendation (2013). https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/. Accessed 16 Apr 2021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dibowski, H. (2021). Property Assertion Constraints for an Informed, Error-Preventing Expansion of Knowledge Graphs. In: Villazón-Terrazas, B., Ortiz-Rodríguez, F., Tiwari, S., Goyal, A., Jabbar, M. (eds) Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Web. KGSWC 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1459. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91305-2_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91305-2_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91304-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91305-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)