Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Queries as Schema-Templates for Graph Databases

  • Schwerpunktbeitrag
  • Published:
Datenbank-Spektrum Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contrast to heavy-handed ER-style data models in relational databases, knowledge graphs (or graph databases) capture entity semantics in terms of entity relationships and properties following a simple collect-as-you-go model. While this allows for a more flexible and dynamically adaptable knowledge representation, it comes at the price of more complex querying: with varying degrees of information sparsity, it will gradually become more difficult to figure out what an entity actually represents. Thus, matching the intended schema as specified by a query against actually occurring entity patterns in the graph database needs severe attention on a conceptual level. In this article, we analyze graph patterns as schema information from a graph pattern matching perspective. We argue that every query consists of a mixture of conceptual information (how entities are structured) together with evaluation information (further dependencies and constraints on data) and that this mixture is not always easy to divide. To arrive at truly schema-aware graph query processing, we propose several matching mechanisms, each mandating a specific semantic meaning of the graph pattern, and discuss their practical applicability.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A preorder is a binary relation \(\mathbin{\sqsubseteq}\subseteq A\times A\) that is reflexive (i. e. for all \(a\in A\), \(a\sqsubseteq a\)) and transitive (i. e. for all \(a,b,c\in A\), \(a\sqsubseteq b\) and \(b\sqsubseteq c\) implies \(a\sqsubseteq c\)).

  2. An equivalence relation is a preorder \(\mathbin{\equiv}\subseteq A\times A\) that is symmetric (i. e. for all \(a,b\in A\), \(a\equiv b\) implies \(b\equiv a\)).

References

  1. Abedjan Z, Golab L, Naumann F (2015) Profiling relational data: a survey. Vldb J 24(4):557–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abiteboul S, Buneman P, Suciu D (1999) Data on the web: from relations to semistructured data and XML. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angles R, Gutierrez C (2005) Querying RDF data from a graph database perspective. In: Gómez-Pérez A, Euzenat J (eds) ESWC 2005, LNCS. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 346–360 https://doi.org/10.1007/11431053_24

    Google Scholar 

  4. Angles R, Arenas M, Barceló P, Hogan A, Reutter J, Vrgoč D (2017) Foundations of modern query languages for graph databases. Acm Comput Surv 50(5):68:1–68:40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3104031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brookes SD, Hoare CAR, Roscoe AW (1984) A theory of communicating sequential processes. JACM 31(3):560–599. https://doi.org/10.1145/828.833

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Brynielsson J, Högberg J, Kaati L, Mårtenson C, Svenson P (2010) Detecting social positions using simulation. ASONAM 2010, pp 48–55 https://doi.org/10.1109/ASONAM.2010.52

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chen PPS (1976) The entity-relationship model – toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1(1):9–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/320434.320440

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook SA (1971) The complexity of theorem-proving procedures. Proceedings of the Third Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’71. ACM, New York, pp 151–158 https://doi.org/10.1145/800157.805047

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dong X, Gabrilovich E, Heitz G, Horn W, Lao N, Murphy K, Strohmann T, Sun S, Zhang W (2014) Knowledge vault: a web-scale approach to probabilistic knowledge fusion. Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’14. ACM, New York, pp 601–610 https://doi.org/10.1145/2623330.2623623

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fan W (2012) Graph pattern matching revised for social network analysis. ICDT 2012. ACM, New York, pp 8–21 https://doi.org/10.1145/2274576.2274578

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fan W, Li J, Ma S, Tang N, Wu Y, Wu Y (2010) Graph pattern matching: from intractable to polynomial time. PVDLB Endow 3(1):264–275. https://doi.org/10.14778/1920841.1920878

    Google Scholar 

  12. Galárraga L, Razniewski S, Amarilli A, Suchanek FM (2017) Predicting completeness in knowledge bases. Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM ’17. ACM, New York, pp 375–383 https://doi.org/10.1145/3018661.3018739

    Google Scholar 

  13. van Glabbeek RJ (1990) The linear time - branching time spectrum. In: Baeten JCM, Klop JW (eds) CONCUR 1990. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 278–297 https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0039066

    Google Scholar 

  14. van Glabbeek R, Goltz U (1989) Equivalence notions for concurrent systems and refinement of actions. In: Kreczmar A, Mirkowska G (eds) Mathematical foundations of computer science 1989. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 237–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Glimm B, Krötzsch M (2010) Sparql beyond subgraph matching. The Semantic Web – ISWC 2010. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 241–256

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hell P, Nešetřil J (1990) On the complexity of h‑coloring. J Comb Theory Ser B 48(1):92–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(90)90132-J

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Henzinger M, Henzinger T, Kopke P (1995) Computing simulations on finite and infinite graphs. In: FOCS 1995. IEEE Computer Society, pp 453–462 https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1995.492576

  18. Homoceanu S, Balke WT (2015) A chip off the old block - extracting typical attributes for entities based on family resemblance. Database systems for advanced applications. Springer, Cham, pp 493–509

    Google Scholar 

  19. Homoceanu S, Wille P, Balke WT (2013) Proswip: property-based data access for semantic web interactive programming. Proceedings of the 12th International Semantic Web Conference - Part I, ISWC ’13. Springer, New York, pp 184–199 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41335-3_12

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lee J, Han WS, Kasperovics R, Lee JH (2012) An in-depth comparison of subgraph isomorphism algorithms in graph databases. PVLDB Endow 6(2):133–144. https://doi.org/10.14778/2535568.2448946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ma S, Cao Y, Fan W, Huai J, Wo T (2011) Capturing topology in graph pattern matching. PVLDB Endow 5(4):310–321. https://doi.org/10.14778/2095686.2095690

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Ma S, Cao Y, Fan W, Huai J, Wo T (2014) Strong simulation: capturing topology in graph pattern matching. Acm Trans Database Syst 39(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/2528937

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Mennicke S, Kalo JC, Balke WT (2017) Querying graph databases: what do graph patterns mean? Springer, Cham, pp 134–148 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69904-2_11

    Google Scholar 

  24. Milner R (1971) An algebraic definition of simulation between programs. Proceedings of the 2Nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’71. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, pp 481–489

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mottin D, Lissandrini M, Velegrakis Y, Palpanas T (2016) Exemplar queries: a new way of searching. VLDB J 25(6):741–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00778-016-0429-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nardo LD, Ranzato F, Tapparo F (2009) The subgraph similarity problem. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 21(5):748–749. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2008.205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pérez J, Arenas M, Gutierrez C (2009) Semantics and complexity of sparql. Acm Trans Database Syst 34(3):16:1–16:45. https://doi.org/10.1145/1567274.1567278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Polyvyanyy A, Weidlich M, Weske M (2012) Isotactics as a foundation for alignment and abstraction of behavioral models. In: Barros A, Gal A, Kindler E (eds) Business process management. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 335–351

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Vardi MY (1982) The complexity of relational query languages (extended abstract). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC ’82. ACM, New York, pp 137–146 https://doi.org/10.1145/800070.802186

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Informationssysteme, TU Braunschweig, Mühlenpfordtstraße 23, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany

    Stephan Mennicke, Jan-Christoph Kalo & Wolf-Tilo Balke

Authors
  1. Stephan Mennicke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Christoph Kalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wolf-Tilo Balke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Mennicke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mennicke, S., Kalo, JC. & Balke, WT. Using Queries as Schema-Templates for Graph Databases. Datenbank Spektrum 18, 89–98 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13222-018-0286-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13222-018-0286-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation