Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SPARQL graph pattern rewriting for OWL-DL inference queries

  • Regular Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the issue of OWL-DL ontology queries implemented in SPARQL. Currently, ontology repositories construct inference ontology models, and match SPARQL queries to the models, to derive inference results. Because an inference model uses much more storage space than the original model, and cannot be reused as inference requirements vary, this method is not suitable for large-scale deployment. To solve this problem, this paper proposes a novel method that passes rewritten SPARQL queries to the original ontology model, to retrieve inference results. We define OWL-DL inference rules and apply them to rewriting Graph Patterns in queries. The paper classifies the inference rules and discusses how these rules affect query rewriting. To illustrate the advantages of our proposal, we present a prototype system based on Jena, and address query optimization, to eliminate the disadvantages of augmented query sentences. We perform a set of query tests and compare the results with related works. The results show that the proposed method results in significantly improved query efficiency, without compromising completeness or soundness.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ARQ—A SPARQL Processor for Jena. http://jena.sourceforge.net/ARQ/

  2. Broekstra J, Kampman A (2003) Inferencing and truth maintenance in RDF schema: exploring a naive practical approach. In: Proceedings of workshop on practical and scalable semantic systems at the second international semantic web conference, Sanibel Island, Florida, October 2003

  3. Broekstra J, Kampman A (2003) SeRQL: a second generation RDF query language. In: Proceedings of SWAD-Europe workshop on semantic web storage and retrieval, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, November 2003

  4. Broekstra J, Kampman A, van Harmelen F (2002) Sesame: a generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF schema. In: Horrocks I, Hendler J (eds) Proceedings of international semantic web conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2342. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 54–68

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fikes R, Hayes P, Horrocks I (2003) OWL-QL—a language for deductive query answering on the semantic web. In: Technical report KSL-03-14, Stanford University, CA

  6. Friedman-Hill E (2008) Jess: the rule engine for the Java Platform. http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov/jess/

  7. Fuxman A, Miller J (2005) First-order query rewriting for inconsistent databases. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on database theory, Scotland, pp 337–351

  8. Guo Y, Pan Z, Heflin J (2004) An evaluation of knowledge base systems for large OWL datasets. In: Proceedings of the third international semantic web conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3298. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 274–288

  9. Haarslev V, Moller R, Wessel M (2004) Querying the semantic Web with Racer + nRQL. In: Proceedings of the KI-2004 international workshop on applications of description logics, Ulm, Germany, 24 September 2004

  10. Halevy AY (2001) Answering queries using views: a survey. VLDB J 10(4): 270–294

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. HAWK: OWL Repository and Toolkit. Lehigh University. http://swat.cse.lehigh.edu/

  12. Hayes P (2004) RDF Semantics, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/

  13. Horridge M, Bechhofer S, Noppens O (2007) Igniting the OWL 1.1 Touch Paper: The OWL API. In: Proceedings of the third OWL experienced and directions workshop, Innsbruck, Austria, June 2007

  14. Horrocks I, Sattler U (2005) A tableaux decision procedure for SHOIQ. In: Proceedings of the 19th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 448–453

  15. Horrocks I, Tessaris S (2000) A conjunctive query language for description logic aboxes. In: Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence and 12th conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence, pp 399–404

  16. Horrocks I, Tessaris S (2002) Querying the semantic web: a formal approach. In: Horrocks I, Hendler J (eds) Proceedings of the 13th international semantic web conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2342. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–191

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jena—a semantic web framework for Java. http://jena.sourceforge.net

  18. Jing Y, Jeong D, Baik D (2007) A Query-Oriented Semantic Entailment for RDF Ontology Query. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on complex systems and applications (ICCSA), J Dyn Continuous Discrete Impulsive Syst Ser B (DCDIS-B):1384–1388

  19. Klyne G, Carroll JJ (2004) Resource description framework (RDF): concepts and abstract syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

  20. Kopena J (2005) OWLJessKB: a semantic web reasoning tool. http://edge.cs.drexel.edu/assemblies/software/owljesskb/

  21. Kotis K, Vouros GA (2005) Human-centered ontology engineering: the HCOME methodology. Knowl Inf Syst 10(1): 109–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ludwig SA, Rana OF (2007) Comparing semantic registries—OWLJessKB and instanceStore. In: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on service-oriented computing performance, Monterey, CA, June 2007

  23. Noy NF, Klein M (2004) Ontology evolution: not the same as schema evolution. Knowl Inf Syst 6: 428–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patel-Schneider PF, Hayes P, Horrocks I (2004) OWL web ontology language semantics and abstract syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/

  25. Perez J, Arenas M, Gutierrez C (2006) Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. In: Proceedings of the fifth international semantic web conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4273. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 30–43

  26. Pinto HS, Martins JP (2004) Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowl Inf Syst 6: 441–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A (2004) SPARQL query language for RDF, W3C Working Draft 12 October 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/

  28. Seaborne A (2004) RDQL—a query language for RDF. W3C Member Submission 9 January 2004. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-RDQL-20040109/

  29. Tsarkov D, Horrocks I (2006) FaCT++ description logic reasoner: system description. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on automated reasoning

  30. Vidal ME, Raschid L, Marquez N et al (2006) Query rewriting in the semantic web. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on data engineering workshops, USA, 2006, p 7

  31. Zhang C, Naughton J, DeWitt D et al (2001) On supporting containment queries in relational database management systems. In: Aref WG (ed) Proceedings of the 2001 ACM SIGMOD international conference on management of data (SIGMOD), Santa Barbara, 2001, pp 425–436

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University, Seoul, 136-713, South Korea

    Yixin Jing & Doo-Kwon Baik

  2. Department of Informatics and Statistics, Kunsan National University, Gunsan, 573-701, South Korea

    Dongwon Jeong

Authors
  1. Yixin Jing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dongwon Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doo-Kwon Baik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yixin Jing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jing, Y., Jeong, D. & Baik, DK. SPARQL graph pattern rewriting for OWL-DL inference queries. Knowl Inf Syst 20, 243–262 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0169-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-008-0169-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation