skip to main content
10.1145/2736277.2741636acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswwwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Towards Reconciling SPARQL and Certain Answers

Published:18 May 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

SPARQL entailment regimes are strongly influenced by the big body of works on ontology-based query answering, notably in the area of Description Logics (DLs). However, the semantics of query answering under SPARQL entailment regimes is defined in a more naive and much less expressive way than the certain answer semantics usually adopted in DLs. The goal of this work is to introduce an intuitive certain answer semantics also for SPARQL and to show the feasibility of this approach. For OWL 2 QL entailment, we present algorithms for the evaluation of an interesting fragment of SPARQL (the so-called well-designed SPARQL). Moreover, we show that the complexity of the most fundamental query analysis tasks (such as query containment and equivalence testing) is not negatively affected by the presence of OWL 2 QL entailment under the proposed semantics.

References

  1. M. Arenas, G. Gottlob, and A. Pieris. Expressive languages for querying the semantic web. In Proc.,of PODS 2014, pages 14--26. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Arenas and J. Pérez. Querying semantic web data with SPARQL. In Proc.,of PODS 2011, pages 305--316. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. M. Bienvenu, T. Eiter, C. Lutz, M. Ortiz, and M.vSimkus. Query answering in the description logic $\mathcalS$. In Proc.,of DL 2010. CEUR-WS.org, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M. Bienvenu, M. Ortiz, M.vSimkus, and G. Xiao. Tractable queries for lightweight description logics. In Proc.,of IJCAI 2013. IJCAI/AAAI, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Bischof, M. Krötzsch, A. Polleres, and S. Rudolph. Schema-agnostic query rewriting in SPARQL 1.1. In Proc.,of ISWC 2014, pages 584--600. Springer, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D. Calvanese, G. De Giacomo, D. Lembo, M. Lenzerini, and R. Rosati. Tractable reasoning and efficient query answering in description logics: The DL-Lite family. J.,Autom.,Reasoning, 39(3):385--429, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proc.,of STOC 1977, pages 77--90. ACM, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. T. Eiter, M. Ortiz, M.vSimkus, T. Tran, and G. Xiao. Query rewriting for Horn-SHIQ plus rules. In Proc.,of AAAI 2012. AAAI Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. B. Glimm. Using SPARQL with RDFS and OWL entailment. In Reasoning Web 2011, Tutorial Lectures, pages 137--201. Springer, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Glimm, C. Lutz, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 31:157--204, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. B. Glimm and C. Ogbuji. SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Recommendation, W3C, Mar. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. F. Goasdoué, I. Manolescu, and A. Roatis. Efficient query answering against dynamic RDF databases. In In Proc.,of EDBT 2013, pages 299--310. ACM, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. I. Kollia and B. Glimm. Optimizing SPARQL query answering over OWL ontologies. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR), 48:253--303, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. R. Kontchakov, C. Lutz, D. Toman, F. Wolter, and M. Zakharyaschev. The combined approach to query answering in DL-Lite. In Proc.,of KR 2010. AAAI Press, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. R. Kontchakov, M. Rezk, M. Rodriguez-Muro, G. Xiao, and M. Zakharyaschev. Answering SPARQL queries over databases under OWL 2 QL entailment regime. In Proc.,of ISWC 2014, pages 552--567. Springer, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. V. Kostylev and B. C. Grau. On the semantics of SPARQL queries with optional matching under entailment regimes. In Proc.,of ISWC 2014, pages 374--389. Springer, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. E. V. Kostylev and J. L. Reutter. Answering counting aggregate queries over ontologies of the DL-Lite family. In Proc.,of AAAI 2013. AAAI Press, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. A. Letelier, J. Pérez, R. Pichler, and S. Skritek. Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 38(4):25, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. L. Libkin. Incomplete data: what went wrong, and how to fix it. In Proc.,PODS 2014, pages 1--13. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. C. Lutz. The complexity of conjunctive query answering in expressive description logics. In Proc.,of IJCAR 2008, pages 179--193. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. B. Motik, Y. Nenov, R. Piro, I. Horrocks, and D. Olteanu. Parallel materialisation of datalog programs in centralised, main-memory RDF systems. In Proc.,AAAI 2014, pages 129--137. AAAI Press, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Ortiz, D. Calvanese, and T. Eiter. Data complexity of query answering in expressive description logics via tableaux. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 41(1):61--98, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. M. Ortiz, S. Rudolph, and M.vSimkus. Query answering in the horn fragments of the description logics SHOIQ and SROIQ. In Proc.,of IJCAI 2011, pages 1039--1044. IJCAI/AAAI, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J. Pérez, M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 34(3), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. R. Pichler and S. Skritek. Containment and equivalence of well-designed SPARQL. In Proc.,of PODS 2014, pages 39--50. ACM, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. R. Rosati. On conjunctive query answering in EL. In Proc.,DL 2007. CEUR-WS.org, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. R. Rosati and A. Almatelli. Improving query answering over DL-Lite ontologies. In Proc.,of KR 2010. AAAI Press, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. M. Schmidt, M. Meier, and G. Lausen. Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In Proc.,of ICDT 2010, pages 4--33. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. J. F. Sequeda, M. Arenas, and D. P. Miranker. OBDA: query rewriting or materialization? In practice, both! In Proc.,of ISWC 2014, pages 535--551. Springer, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Towards Reconciling SPARQL and Certain Answers

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              WWW '15: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
              May 2015
              1460 pages
              ISBN:9781450334693

              Copyright © 2015 Copyright is held by the International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2)

              Publisher

              International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee

              Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland

              Publication History

              • Published: 18 May 2015

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              WWW '15 Paper Acceptance Rate131of929submissions,14%Overall Acceptance Rate1,899of8,196submissions,23%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader