Abstract
The ability to compute the differences that exist between two RDF/S Knowledge Bases (KB) is an important step to cope with the evolving nature of the Semantic Web (SW). In particular, RDF/S deltas can be employed to reduce the amount of data that need to be exchanged and managed over the network in order to build SW synchronization and versioning services. By considering deltas as sets of change operations, in this article we introduce various RDF/S differential functions which take into account inferred knowledge from an RDF/S knowledge base. We first study their correctness in transforming a source to a target RDF/S knowledge base in conjunction with the semantics of the employed change operations (i.e., with or without side-effects on inferred knowledge). Then we formally analyze desired properties of RDF/S deltas such as size minimality, semantic identity, redundancy elimination, reversibility, and composability, as well as identify those RDF/S differential functions that satisfy them. Subsequently, we experimentally evaluate the computing time and size of the produced deltas over real and synthetic RDF/S knowledge bases.
- Aho, A., Garey, M., and Ullman, J. 1972. The transitive reduction of a directed graph. SIAM J. Comput. 1, 131.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D. 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J. Symbol. Logic 50, 2, 510--530.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Berliner, B. 1990. CVS II: Parallelizing software development. In Proceedings of the USENIX Winter Technical Conference. 341--352.Google Scholar
- Berners-Lee, T. and Connolly, D. 2004. Delta: An ontology for the distribution of differences between RDF graphs. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Diff (version: 2006-05-12).Google Scholar
- Brickley, D. and Guha, R. V. 2004. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema, W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.Google Scholar
- Christophides, V., Plexousakis, D., Scholl, M., and Tourtounis, S. 2003. On labeling schemes for the semantic Web. In Proceedings of the International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’03). 544--555. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Cloran, R. and Irwin, B. 2005. Transmitting RDF graph deltas for a cheaper semantic Web. In Proceedings of the Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications Conference (SATNAC’05).Google Scholar
- Cobena, G., Abiteboul, S., and Marian, A. 2001. Detecting changes in XML documents. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE).Google Scholar
- Ding, L., Finin, T., Joshi, A., Peng, Y., da Silva, P., and McGuinness, D. 2005. Tracking RDF graph provenance using RDF molecules. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’05).Google Scholar
- Flouris, G. 2006. On belief change and ontology evolution. Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, University of Crete, Greece.Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors, P. 1992. Belief revision: An introduction. In Belief Revision. Cambridge University Press, 1--20.Google Scholar
- Gutierrez, C., Hurtado, C., and Mendelzon, A. 2004. Foundations of semantic Web databases. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Hayes, P. 2004. RDF semantics, W3C recommendation. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/.Google Scholar
- Heflin, J., Hendler, J., and Luke, S. 1999. Coping with changing ontologies in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’99) (Workshop on Ontology Management).Google Scholar
- Klein, M. and Noy, N. 2003. A component-based framework for ontology evolution. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’03) (Workshop on Ontologies and Distributed Systems).Google Scholar
- Klein, M., Fensel, D., Kiryakov, A., and Ognyanov, D. 2002. Ontology versioning and change detection on the Web. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Knowledge Patterns (EKAW’02). 197--212. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Konieczny, S. and Perez, R. P. 2005. Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. Europ. J. Oper. Res. 160, 3, 785--802.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Konstantinidis, G., Flouris, G., Antoniou, G., and Christophides, V. 2008. A formal approach for rdf/s ontology evolution. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI’08). 70--74. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Lin, C., Hong, J., and Doerr, M. 2008. Issues in an inference platform for generating deductive knowledge: A case study in cultural heritage digital libraries using the CIDOC CRM. Int. J. Digital Libraries 8, 2, 115--132. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Magiridou, M., Sahtouris, S., Christophides, V., and Koubarakis, M. 05. RUL: A declarative update language for RDF. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’05). 506--521. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Marian, A., Abiteboul, S., Cobena, G., and Mignet, L. 2001. Change-Centric management of versions in an XML warehouse. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). 581--590. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Noy, N. and Musen, M. 2002. PromptDiff: A fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. In Proceedings of Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’02). 744--750. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Noy, N. and Musen, M. 2004. Ontology versioning in an ontology management framework. IEEE Intell. Syst. 19, 4, 6--13. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Noy, N., Kunnatur, S., Klein, M., and Musen, M. A. 2004. Tracking changes during ontology evolution. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’04). 259--273.Google Scholar
- Noy, N., Chugh, A., Liu, W., and Musen, M. 2006. A framework for ontology evolution in collaborative environments. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. 544--558. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Nuutila, E. 1995. Efficient Transitive Closure Computation in Large Digraphs. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Mathematics and Computing in Engineering Series No. 74, Finnish Academy of Technology. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Plessers, P. and Troyer, O. D. 2005. Ontology change detection using a version log. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’05). 578--592. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Poutre’, J. A. L. and van Leeuwen, J. 1987. Maintenance of transitive closures and transitive reductions of graphs. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science. 106--120. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Theoharis, Y., Georgakopoulos, G., and Christophides, V. 2007. On the synthetic generation of semantic Web schemas. In Proceedings of the SWDB-ODBIS07: Joint ODBIS & SWDB Workshop on Semantic Web, Ontologies, Databases (Colocated with VLDB’’07).Google Scholar
- Theoharis, Y., Tzitzikas, Y., Kotzinos, D., and Christophides, V. 2008. On graph features of semantic Web schemas. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Engin. 20, 5, 692--702. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Petersson, J., Piazza, F., and Puliti, P. 2004. RDFGrowth, a P2P annotation exchange algorithm for scalable semantic Web applications. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems MobiQuitous.Google Scholar
- Tzitzikas, Y. and Kotzinos, D. 2007. (Semantic Web) evolution through change logs: Problems and solutions. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Applications (AIA’07). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Ullman, J. and Yannakakis, M. 1991. The input/output complexity of transitive closure. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 3, 2, 331--360.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Volkel, M., Winkler, W., Sure, Y., Kruk, S. R., and Synak, M. 2005. SemVersion: A versioning system for RDF and ontologies. In Proceedings of the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’05).Google Scholar
- Warshall, S. 1962. A theorem on Boolean matrices. J. ACM 9, 1, 11--12. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Zeginis, D., Tzitzikas, Y., and Christophides, V. 2007. On the foundations of computing deltas between RDF models. In Proceedings of the 6th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’07). Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Zhang, Z., Zhang, L., Lin, C., Zhao, Y., and Yu, Y. 2003. Data migration for ontology evolution. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’03) (Poster).Google Scholar
Index Terms
On Computing Deltas of RDF/S Knowledge Bases
Recommendations
RDF, Jena, SparQL and the 'Semantic Web'
SIGUCCS '09: Proceedings of the 37th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall conference: communication and collaborationThe Resource Description Format (RDF) is used to represent information modeled as a "graph": a set of individual objects, along with a set of connections among those objects. In that role, RDF is one of the pillars of the so-called Semantic Web. This ...
Don't like RDF reification?: making statements about statements using singleton property
WWW '14: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide webStatements about RDF statements, or meta triples, provide additional information about individual triples, such as the source, the occurring time or place, or the certainty. Integrating such meta triples into semantic knowledge bases would enable the ...
RDF packages: a scheme for efficient reasoning and querying over large-scale RDF data
iiWAS '10: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & ServicesWhen querying RDF and RDFS data, for improving the performance, it is common to derive all triples according to RDFS entailment rules before query processing. An undesirable drawback of this approach is that a large number of triples are generated by ...






Comments