Skip to main content

Property Assertion Constraints for an Informed, Error-Preventing Expansion of Knowledge Graphs

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Knowledge Graphs and Semantic Web (KGSWC 2021)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 1459))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 639 Accesses

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 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

  1. Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). W3C Recommendation (2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. Accessed 16 Apr 2021

  2. 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

  3. Huaman, E., Kärle, E., Fensel, D.: Knowledge Graph Validation (2020). https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01389. Accessed 16 Apr 2021

  4. Paulheim, H.: Knowledge graph refinement: a survey of approaches and evaluation methods. Semant. Web 8(3), 489–508 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Polleres, A., Hogan, A., Harth, A., Decker, S.: Can we ever catch up with the Web? Semant. Web 1(1), 45–52 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, P.M., Lausen, G., Schätzle, A.: RDF constraint checking. In: Proceedings of the EDBT/ICDT 2015 Joint Conference, Brussels, Belgium (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Shi, B., Weninger, T.: Discriminative predicate path mining for fact checking in knowledge graphs. Knowl. Based Syst. 104(2016), 123–133 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Melo, A., Paulheim, H.: Automatic detection of relation assertion errors and induction of relation constraints. Semant. Web 11(5), 801–830 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Dibowski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics