Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Rules and Reasoning (RuleML+RR 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10364))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its ingredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines consuming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base themselves on a combination of different formalisms, e.g. Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to support the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates defined in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough.

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.

    See, e.g. statistics at: http://lod-cloud.net/.

  2. 2.

    https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page.

  3. 3.

    http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles.

  4. 4.

    This could be expressed by an extended version of MATCH as for example the constraint “Negative Literal Pattern Matching” in [12].

  5. 5.

    https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins.

  6. 6.

    More about that in Sect. 5.1.

  7. 7.

    http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/eye-builtins.html.

  8. 8.

    https://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/CwmBuiltins.

  9. 9.

    https://github.com/boschthomas/RDF-Constraints-Vocabulary.

  10. 10.

    As explained in Sect. 4.4 there are alternative ways to express the predicate log:notEqualTo in , the antecedence of the entire rule could also be expressed only using RIF predicates.

References

  1. FuXi 1.4: A Python-based, bi-directional logical reasoning system for the semantic web. http://code.google.com/p/fuxi/

  2. Arndt, D., et al.: Ontology reasoning using rules in an ehealth context. In: Bassiliades, N., Gottlob, G., Sadri, F., Paschke, A., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2015. LNCS, vol. 9202, pp. 465–472. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_31

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Arndt, D., et al.: Improving OWL RL reasoning in N3 by using specialized rules. In: Tamma, V., Dragoni, M., Gonçalves, R., Ławrynowicz, A. (eds.) OWLED 2015. LNCS, vol. 9557, pp. 93–104. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33245-1_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Arndt, D., Verborgh, R., Roo, J., Sun, H., Mannens, E., Walle, R.: Semantics of Notation3 logic: a solution for implicit quantification. In: Bassiliades, N., Gottlob, G., Sadri, F., Paschke, A., Roman, D. (eds.) RuleML 2015. LNCS, vol. 9202, pp. 127–143. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21542-6_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Berners-Lee, T.: cwm (2000–2009). http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html

  6. Berners-Lee, T., Connolly, D., Kagal, L., Scharf, Y., Hendler, J.: N3Logic: a logical framework for the world wide web. Theory Pract. Logic Programm. 8(3), 249–269 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bock, C., Fokoue, A., Haase, P., Hoekstra, R., Horrocks, I., Ruttenberg, A., Sattler, U., Smith, M.: owl 2 Web Ontology Language. w3c Recommendation, December 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/

  8. Bosch, T., Acar, E., Nolle, A., Eckert, K.: The role of reasoning for RDF validation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Semantic Systems, pp. 33–40. SEMANTICS 2015, ACM, New York (2015). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2814864.2814867

  9. Bosch, T., Nolle, A., Acar, E., Eckert, K.: RDF validation requirements-evaluation and logical underpinning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.03933 (2015)

  10. Calvanese, D., Carroll, J., Di Giacomo, G., Hendler, J., Herman, I., Parsia, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Ruttenberg, A., Sattler, U., Schneider, M.: owl 2 Web Ontology Language Profiles, 2nd edn. w3c Recommendation, December 2012. www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/

  11. Damásio, C.V., Analyti, A., Antoniou, G., Wagner, G.: Supporting open and closed world reasoning on the web. In: Alferes, J.J., Bailey, J., May, W., Schwertel, U. (eds.) PPSWR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4187, pp. 149–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11853107_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Hartmann, T.: Validation Framework for RDF-based Constraint Languages. Ph.D. thesis, Dissertation, Karlsruhe, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT) 2016 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ketterl, M., Knipping, L., Ludwig, N., Mertens, R., Waitelonis, J., Ludwig, N., Knuth, M., Sack, H.: Whoknows? Evaluating linked data heuristics with a quiz that cleans up dbpedia. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 8(4), 236–248 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kifer, M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning in FLORA-2. In: Baral, C., Greco, G., Leone, N., Terracina, G. (eds.) LPNMR 2005. LNCS, vol. 3662, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11546207_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Kifer, M.: Rule interchange format: the framework. In: Bassiliades, N., Governatori, G., Paschke, A. (eds.) RuleML 2008. LNCS, vol. 5321, pp. 1–2. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88808-6_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Kifer, M., Bruijn, J., Boley, H., Fensel, D.: A realistic architecture for the semantic web. In: Adi, A., Stoutenburg, S., Tabet, S. (eds.) RuleML 2005. LNCS, vol. 3791, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi:10.1007/11580072_3

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Kifer, M., Lausen, G., Wu, J.: Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages. J. ACM 42(4), 741–843 (1995). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/210332.210335

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Knublauch, H., Hendler, J.A., Idehen, K.: SPIN – overview and motivation. Technical report, W3C, February 2011. https://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-overview-20110222/. Accessed 18 April 2016

  19. Knublauch, H., Kontokostas, D.: Shapes constraint language (shacl). Technical report, W3C (2017). https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/. Accessed 3 March 2017

  20. Kontokostas, D., Mader, C., Dirschl, C., Eck, K., Leuthold, M., Lehmann, J., Hellmann, S.: Semantically enhanced quality assurance in the jurion business use case. In: 13th International Conference, ESWC 2016, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 2016, pp. 661–676 (2016). http://svn.aksw.org/papers/2016/ESWC_Jurion/public.pdf

  21. Kontokostas, D., Westphal, P., Auer, S., Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Cornelissen, R., Zaveri, A.: Test-driven evaluation of linked data quality. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 747–758. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Adding integrity constraints to OWL. In: OWLED, vol. 258 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nilsson, M.: Description set profiles: a constraint language for dublin core application profiles. DCMI Working Draft (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Polleres, A., Boley, H., Kifer, M.: RIF datatypes and built-ins 1.0, 2nd edn. w3c Recommendation, February 2013. https://www.w3.org/TR/rif-dtb/

  25. Polleres, A., Feier, C., Harth, A.: Rules with contextually scoped negation. In: Sure, Y., Domingue, J. (eds.) ESWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4011, pp. 332–347. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11762256_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: sparql Query Language for rdf. w3c Recommendation, January 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  27. Rietveld, L., Beek, W., Schlobach, S.: LOD lab: experiments at LOD scale. In: Arenas, M., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9367, pp. 339–355. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Ryman, A.: Resource shape 2.0. w3c member submission. In: World Wide Web Consortium, February 2014

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sirin, E., Tao, J.: Towards integrity constraints in OWL. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on OWL: Experiences and Directions, vol. 529, pp. 79–88. OWLED 2009, CEUR-WS.org, Aachen, Germany, Germany (2009). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2890046.2890055

  30. Solbrig, H., Prud’hommeaux, E.: Shape expressions 1.0 definition. w3c member submission. World Wide Web Consortium, June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tao, J.: Integrity constraints for the semantic web: an OWL 2 DL extension. Ph.D. thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Verborgh, R., De Roo, J.: Drawing conclusions from linked data on the web. IEEE Softw. 32(5), 23–27 (2015). http://online.qmags.com/ISW0515?cid=3244717&eid=19361&pg=25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zaveri, A., Rula, A., Maurino, A., Pietrobon, R., Lehmann, J., Auer, S.: Quality assessment for linked data: a survey. Semant. Web 7(1), 63–93 (2015). http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/system/files/swj556.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The described research activities were funded by Ghent University, imec, Flanders Innovation & Entrepreneurship (AIO), the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO Flanders), and the European Union, in the context of the project “DiSSeCt”, which is a collaboration by SMIT, DistriNet, and IDLab.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ghent University - imec - IDLab, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh & Erik Mannens

Authors
  1. Dörthe Arndt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ben De Meester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anastasia Dimou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruben Verborgh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erik Mannens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dörthe Arndt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Italy

    Stefania Costantini

  2. Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy

    Enrico Franconi

  3. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

    William Van Woensel

  4. Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom

    Roman Kontchakov

  5. Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

    Fariba Sadri

  6. SINTEF/University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Dumitru Roman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Arndt, D., Meester, B.D., Dimou, A., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E. (2017). Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation. In: Costantini, S., Franconi, E., Van Woensel, W., Kontchakov, R., Sadri, F., Roman, D. (eds) Rules and Reasoning. RuleML+RR 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10364. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61252-2_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61252-2_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61251-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61252-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation