skip to main content
10.1145/2814864.2814871acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessemanticsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Updating OWL2 ontologies using pruned rulesets

Published:16 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Evolution in Semantic Web content produces difference files (deltas) that track changes between ontology versions. These changes may represent ontology modifications or simply changes in application data. An ontology is typically expressed in a combination of OWL and RDF knowledge representation languages. A data repository that represents an ontology may be large and may be duplicated over the Internet, often in the form of a relational datastore. The deltas can be used to reduce the storage and bandwidth overhead involved in disseminating ontology updates. Minimising the delta size can be achieved by reasoning over the underlying knowledge base. OWL 2 is a development of the OWL 1 standard that incorporates new features to aid application construction. Among the sub languages of OWL 2, OWL 2 RL/RDF provides an enriched rule set that extends the semantic capability of the OWL environment. This additional semantic content can be exploited in change detection approaches that strive to minimise the alterations to be made when ontologies are updated. The presence of blank nodes (i.e. nodes that are neither a URI nor a literal) in RDF collections provides a further challenge to ontology change detection. This is a consequence of the practical problems they introduce when comparing data structures before and after update. In the light of OWL 2 RL/RDF, this paper examines the potential for reducing the delta size by pruning the application of unnecessary rules from the reasoning process and using an approach to delta generation that produces the smallest number of updates. It also assesses the impact of alternative approaches to handling blank nodes during the change detection process in ontology structures. The results indicate that pruning the rule set is a potentially expensive process but has the benefit of reducing the joins over relational data stores when carrying out the subsequent inferencing.

References

  1. S. M. M. Al Azwari and J. Wilson. Consistent RDF updates with correct dense deltas. In Proc 30th BICOD, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. J. Carroll and G. Klyne. Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. CVS - concurrent versions system. http://www.nongnu.org/cvs/. Accessed: 2015-06-10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin. Lubm: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 3(2):158--182, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. P. Hayes and B. McBride. RDF semantics. W3C recommendation. World Wide Web Consortium, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Hogan and S. Decker. On the ostensibly silent 'W' in OWL 2 RL. In Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, pages 118--134. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. D.-H. Im, S.-W. Lee, and H.-J. Kim. Backward inference and pruning for RDF change detection using RDBMS. J. Info. Science, 39(2):238--255, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. M. Klein. Supporting evolving ontologies on the internet. In XML-Based Data Management and Multimedia Engineering - EDBT 2002 Workshops, pages 597--606. Springer, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. V. Kolovski, Z. Wu, and G. Eadon. Optimizing enterprise-scale OWL 2 RL reasoning in a relational database system. In The Semantic Web--ISWC 2010, pages 436--452. Springer, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. L. Ma, Y. Yang, Z. Qiu, G. Xie, Y. Pan, and S. Liu. Towards a complete OWL ontology benchmark. Springer, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. B. Motik, B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, Z. Wu, A. Fokoue, and C. Lutz. OWL 2 web ontology language: Profiles. W3C recommendation, 27:61, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. T. Neumann and G. Weikum. x-RDF-3X: Fast querying, high update rates, and consistency for RDF databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 3(1-2):256--263, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. N. F. Noy, M. A. Musen, et al. Promptdiff: A fixed-point algorithm for comparing ontology versions. AAAI/IAAI, 2002:744--750, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. M. Völkel and T. Groza. SemVersion: An RDF-based ontology versioning system. In Proceedings of the IADIS international conference WWW/Internet, volume 2006, page 44, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. D. Zeginis, Y. Tzitzikas, and V. Christophides. On computing deltas of RDF/S knowledge bases. ACM Trans on the Web (TWEB), 5(3):14, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Updating OWL2 ontologies using pruned rulesets

    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
      SEMANTICS '15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Semantic Systems
      September 2015
      220 pages
      ISBN:9781450334624
      DOI:10.1145/2814864

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 September 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      SEMANTICS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate22of97submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate40of182submissions,22%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader