skip to main content
10.1145/2237867.2237873acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Type inference methods and performance for data in an RDBMS

Published: 20 May 2012 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper we survey and measure the performance of methods for reasoning using OWL-DL rules over data stored in an RDBMS. OWL-DL Reasoning may be broken down into two processes of classification and type inference. In the context of databases, classification is the process of deriving additional schema constructs from existing schema constructs in a database, while type inference is the process of inferring values for tables/columns from values in other tables/columns. Thus it is the process of type inference that is the focus of this paper, since as data values are inserted into a database, there is the need to use the inserted data to derive new facts.
The contribution of this paper is that we place the existing methods for type inference over relational data into a new general framework, and classify the methods into three different types: Application Based Reasoning uses reasoners outside of the DBMS to perform type inference, View Based Reasoning uses DBMS views to perform type inference, and Trigger Based Reasoning uses DBMS active rules to perform type inference. We discuss the advantages of each of the three methods, and identify a list of properties that each method might be expected to meet. One key property we identify is transactional reasoning, where the result of reasoning is made available within a database transaction, and we show that most reasoners today fail to have this property. We also present the results of experimental analysis of representative implementations of each of the three methods, and use the results of the experiments to justify conclusions as to when each of the methods discussed is best deployed for particular classes of application.

References

[1]
Oracle database semantic technologies developer's guide 11g, 2009.
[2]
Y. al Safadi et al. OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/.
[3]
Y. al Safadi et al. The wine ontology, 2004. www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/wine.rdf.
[4]
F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. Patel-Schneider. The Description Logic Handbook. CUP, 2nd edition edition, 2007.
[5]
J. Bock, P. Haase, Q. Ji, and R. Volz. Benchmarking OWL reasoners. In ARea2008, 2008.
[6]
J. Broekstra, A. Kampman, and F. van Harmelen. Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying rdf and rdf schema. In International Semantic Web Conference, pages 54--68, 2002.
[7]
R. Cattell. Scalable SQL and NoSQL data stores. SIGMOD Record, 39: 12--27, 2010.
[8]
Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin. LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 3: 158--182, 2005.
[9]
T. Härder and A. Reuter. Principles of transaction-oriented database recovery. ACM Computing Survers, 15(4): 287--317, December 1983.
[10]
U. Hustadt and B. Motik. Description logics and disjunctive datalog the story so far. In Description Logics, 2005.
[11]
A. Kiryakov, D. Ognyanov, and D. Manov. Owlim - a pragmatic semantic repository for OWL. In WISE Workshops, pages 182--192, 2005.
[12]
J. Lu, L. Ma, L. Zhang, J.-S. Brunner, C. Wang, Y. Pan, and Y. Yu. Sor: A practical system for ontology storage, reasoning and search. In VLDB, pages 1402--1405, 2007.
[13]
G. Lukácsy and P. Szeredi. Efficient description logic reasoning in Prolog: the DLog system. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 09(03): 343--414, May 2009.
[14]
L. Ma, Y. Yang, Z. Qiu, G. Xie, Y. Pan, and S. Liu. Towards a complete OWL ontology benchmark. In ESWC, pages 125--139, 2006.
[15]
P. McBrien, N. Rizopoulos, and A. Smith. SQOWL: Type Inference in an RDBMS. In Proc. 29th ER, LNCS, 2010.
[16]
G. Meditskos and N. Bassiliades. A rule-based object-oriented OWL reasoner. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 20(3): 397--410, 2008.
[17]
B. Motik and U. Sattler. A comparison of reasoning techniques for querying large description logic aboxes. In LPAR, pages 227--241, 2006.
[18]
Z. Pan, X. Zhang, and J. Heflin. DLDB2: A scalable multi-perspective semantic web repository. In Web Intelligence, pages 489--495, 2008.
[19]
Pellet. http://clarkparsia.com/pellet/.
[20]
Protege. http://protege.stanford.edu/.
[21]
G. Stoilos, B. Grau, and I. Horrocks. How incomplete is your semantic web reasoner? In Proc. AAAI, 2010.
[22]
D. Tsarkov and I. Horrocks. Fact++ description logic reasoner: System description. In Automated Reasoning, volume 4130 of LNCS, pages 292--297. Springer, 2006.
[23]
J. Zhou, L. Ma, Q. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Yu, and Y. Pan. Minerva: A scalable OWL ontology storage and inference system. In ASWC, pages 429--443, 2006.

Cited By

View all
  • (2016)Transactional and Incremental Type Inference from Data UpdatesThe Computer Journal10.1093/comjnl/bxw048Online publication date: 8-Sep-2016
  • (2015)Transactional and Incremental Type Inference from Data UpdatesData Science10.1007/978-3-319-20424-6_20(206-219)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2015

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SWIM '12: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Web Information Management
May 2012
73 pages
ISBN:9781450314466
DOI:10.1145/2237867
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 20 May 2012

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGMOD/PODS '12
Sponsor:

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)2
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2016)Transactional and Incremental Type Inference from Data UpdatesThe Computer Journal10.1093/comjnl/bxw048Online publication date: 8-Sep-2016
  • (2015)Transactional and Incremental Type Inference from Data UpdatesData Science10.1007/978-3-319-20424-6_20(206-219)Online publication date: 11-Jun-2015

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media