Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SPARQL Queries over Ontologies Under the Fixed-Domain Semantics

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRICAI 2019: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2019)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 11670))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Fixed-domain reasoning over OWL ontologies is adequate in certain closed-world scenarios and has been shown to be both useful and feasible in practice. However, the reasoning modes hitherto supported by available tools do not include querying. We provide the formal foundations of querying under the fixed domain semantics, based on the principle of certain answers, and show how fixed-domain querying can be incorporated in existing reasoning methods using answer set programming (ASP).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To ensure compatibility with their later usage in RDF and SPARQL, we silently presume that all these vocabulary elements are Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs).

  2. 2.

    The original definition of \(\mathcal {SROIQ}\) contained more RBox axioms (expressing transitivity, (a)symmetry, (ir)reflexivity of roles), but these can be shown to be syntactic sugar. Moreover, the definition of \(\mathcal {SROIQ}\) contains so-called global restrictions which prevents certain axioms from occurring together. These complicated restrictions, while crucial for the decidability of classical reasoning in \(\mathcal {SROIQ}\) are not necessary for fixed-domain reasoning considered here, hence we omit them for the sake of brevity.

References

  1. Abiteboul, S., Duschka, O.M.: Complexity of answering queries using materialized views. In: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS), pp. 254–263. ACM Press (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Angles, R., Gutierrez, C.: The expressive power of SPARQL. In: Sheth, A., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 114–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.: The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Birte Glimm, C.O. (ed.): SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Working Draft, 21 March 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/

  6. Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczyński, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvanese, D.: Finite model reasoning in description logics. In: Proceedings of Description Logic Workshop, 1996. AAAI Technical Report, vol. WS-96-05, pp. 25–36. AAAI Press (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cyganiak, R., Wood, D., Lanthaler, M. (eds.): RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation, 25 February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/

  9. Gaggl, S.A., Rudolph, S., Schweizer, L.: Fixed-domain reasoning for description logics. In: Proceedings of European Conference on AI (ECAI), 2016. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 285, pp. 819–827. IOS Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., Motik, B., Stoilos, G., Wang, Z.: HermiT: an OWL 2 reasoner. J. Autom. Reason. 53(3), 245–269 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hitzler, P., Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S.: Foundations of Semantic Web Technologies. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Horrocks, I., Kutz, O., Sattler, U.: The even more irresistible \(\cal{SROIQ}\). In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 57–67. AAAI Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Splitting a logic program. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP), pp. 23–37. MIT Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lutz, C., Sattler, U., Tendera, L.: The complexity of finite model reasoning in description logics. Inf. Comput. 199(1–2), 132–171 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Motik, B., Cuenca Grau, B., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., Lutz, C. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Profiles. W3C Recommendation, 27 October 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/

  18. Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3–4), 241–273 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Polleres, A., Wallner, J.P.: On the relation between SPARQL1.1 and answer set programming. J. Appl. Non-Class. Logics 23(1–2), 159–212 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosati, R.: Finite model reasoning in DL-Lite. In: Bechhofer, S., Hauswirth, M., Hoffmann, J., Koubarakis, M. (eds.) ESWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5021, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68234-9_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Rudolph, S.: Foundations of description logics. In: Polleres, A., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 76–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23032-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Rudolph, S.: Undecidability results for database-inspired reasoning problems in very expressive description logics. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pp. 247–257. AAAI Press (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rudolph, S., Glimm, B.: Nominals, inverses, counting, and conjunctive queries or: why infinity is your friend!. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 39, 429–481 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Rudolph, S., Schweizer, L.: Not too big, not too small... complexities of fixed-domain reasoning in first-order and description logics. In: Oliveira, E., Gama, J., Vale, Z., Lopes Cardoso, H. (eds.) EPIA 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10423, pp. 695–708. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65340-2_57

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Rudolph, S., Schweizer, L., Tirtarasa, S.: Wolpertinger: a fixed-domain reasoner. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Posters & Demonstrations. CEUR, vol. 1963. CEUR-WS.org (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rudolph, S., Schweizer, L., Tirtarasa, S.: Justifications for description logic knowledge bases under the fixed-domain semantics. In: Benzmüller, C., Ricca, F., Parent, X., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML+RR 2018. LNCS, vol. 11092, pp. 185–200. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99906-7_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Schreiber, G., Raimond, Y. (eds.): RDF 1.1 Primer. W3C Recommendation, 24 February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-primer/

  28. Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: a practical OWL-DL reasoner. J. Web Semant. 5(2), 51–53 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Steigmiller, A., Liebig, T., Glimm, B.: Konclude: system description. J. Web Semant. 27, 78–85 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. W3C OWL Working Group: OWL 2 Web Ontology Language: Document Overview. W3C Recommendation (2009). https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

  31. W3C SPARQL Working Group: SPARQL 1.1 Overview. W3C Recommendation, 21 March 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the valuable feedback from the anonymous reviewers, which helped greatly to improve this work. This work has been funded by the European Research Council via the ERC Consolidator Grant No. 771779 (DeciGUT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational Logic Group, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Sebastian Rudolph, Lukas Schweizer & Zhihao Yao

Authors
  1. Sebastian Rudolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Schweizer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhihao Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sebastian Rudolph , Lukas Schweizer or Zhihao Yao .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Abhaya C. Nayak

  2. RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences, Yokohama, Japan

    Alok Sharma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rudolph, S., Schweizer, L., Yao, Z. (2019). SPARQL Queries over Ontologies Under the Fixed-Domain Semantics. In: Nayak, A., Sharma, A. (eds) PRICAI 2019: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11670. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29908-8_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29908-8_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29907-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29908-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation