We introduce the recursive, rule-based RDF query language

RDFLog. RDFLog extends previous RDF query languages by arbitrary

quantifier alternation: blank nodes may occur in the scope of all, some,

or none of the universal variables of a rule. In addition RDFLog is aware

of important RDF features such as the distinction between blank nodes,

literals and URIs or the RDFS vocabulary. The semantics of RDFLog is

closed (every answer is an RDF graph), but lifts RDF’s restrictions on

literal and blank node occurrences for intermediary data. We show how

to define a sound and complete operational semantics that can be implemented

using existing logic programming techniques. Using RDFLog

we classify previous approaches to RDF querying along their support for

blank node construction and show equivalence between languages with

full quantifier alternation and languages with only ∀∃ rules

Bry, François

Calvanese, Diego

Furche, Tim

Ley, Clemens

Linse, Benedikt

Marnette, Bruno

English

Open Access LMU ( Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ. München)

Taming Existence in RDF QueryingFranc¸ois Bry1, Tim Furche1, Clemens Ley2, Benedikt Linse1,and Bruno Marnette21 Institute for Informatics, University of Munich,Oettingenstraße 67, D-80538 Mu¨nchen, Germany2 Oxford University Computing Laboratory,Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD, EnglandAbstract. We introduce the recursive, rule-based RDF query languageRDFLog. RDFLog extends previous RDF query languages by arbitraryquantifier alternation: blank nodes may occur in the scope of all, some,or none of the universal variables of a rule. In addition RDFLog is awareof important RDF features such as the distinction between blank nodes,literals and URIs or the RDFS vocabulary. The semantics of RDFLog isclosed (every answer is an RDF graph), but lifts RDF’s restrictions onliteral and blank node occurrences for intermediary data. We show howto define a sound and complete operational semantics that can be im-plemented using existing logic programming techniques. Using RDFLogwe classify previous approaches to RDF querying along their support forblank node construction and show equivalence between languages withfull quantifier alternation and languages with only ∀∃ rules.1 IntroductionWith the staggering amount of data available in RDF form on the Web, thesecond indispensable ingredient becomes the easy selection and processing ofRDF data. For that purpose, a large number of RDF query languages has beenproposed. In this paper, we add a further exemplar: RDFLog extends datalog tosupport the distinguishing features of RDF such as blank nodes and the logicalcore [1] of the RDFS vocabulary. In RDFLog, Blank nodes can be constructed byexistentially quantified variables in rule heads. RDFLog allows full alternationbetween existential and universal quantifiers in a rule. This sharply contrastswith previous approaches to rule-based query languages that either do not sup-port blank nodes (in rule heads) at all [2], or only a limited form of quantifieralternation [3].To illustrate the benefits of full quantifier alternation, imagine an informationsystem about university courses. We distinguish three types of rules with exis-tential quantifiers (and thus blank nodes) based on the alternation of universaland existential quantifiers:(1) “Someone knows each professor” can be represented in RDFLog as∃stu∀prof ((prof , rdf:type, uni:professor)→ (stu, foaf:knows, prof )) (1)D. Calvanese and G. Lausen (Eds.): RR 2008, LNCS 5341, pp. 236–237, 2008.c© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008Taming Existence in RDF Querying 237We call such rules ∃∀ rules. Some approaches such as [?] are limited to rulesof this form. We show that a recursive rule language that is limited to thesekind of rules is strictly less expressive than a language that allows rules also ofthe form discussed under (2) and (3). The gain is that languages with only ∃∀rules are still decidable. However, we also show that there are larger fragmentsof RDFLog that are still decidable.(2) Imagine, that we would like to state that each lecture must be “practiced”by another course (such as a tutorial or practice lab) without knowing moreabout that course. This statement can not be expressed by ∃∀ rules. In RDFLogit can be represented as∀lec∃crs((lec, rdf:type, uni:lecture)→ (crs , uni:practices, lec)) (2)Such rules are referred to as ∀∃ rules. Recent proposals for rule extensions toSPARQL are limited to this form, if they consider blank nodes in rule heads atall. The reason is that in SPARQL CONSTRUCT patterns a fresh blank node isconstructed for every binding of the universal variables.(3) To the best of our knowledge, RDFLog is the first RDF query language thatsupports the third kind of rules, where quantifiers are allowed to alternate freely:This allows to express statements such as, for each lecture there is a course that“practices” that lecture and is attended by all students attending the lecture.This is represented in RDFLog as∀lec∃crs∀stu((lec, rdf:type, uni:lecture) ∧ (stu, uni:attends, lec)→(crs , uni:practices, lec) ∧ (stu, uni:attends, crs)) (3)We show (for the first time) that rules with full quantifier alternation can benormalized to ∀∃ form. Thus full quantifier alternation does not add to theexpressiveness of RDFLog. Rather, for all languages with ∀∃ rules it comes byvirtue of the rewriting presented here for free, despite being considerably moreconvenient for the programmer.References1. Mun˜oz, S., Pe´rez, J., Gutierrez, C.: Minimal deductive systems for RDF. In: Fran-coni, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519. Springer, Heidel-berg (2007)2. Polleres, A.: From SPARQL to rules (and back). In: Proc. Int’l. World Wide WebConf. (WWW). ACM, New York (2007)3. Schenk, S., Staab, S.: Networked graphs: A declarative mechanism for SPARQLrules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the Web. In: Proc. Int’l. WorldWide Web Conf (WWW). ACM Press, New York (2008)4. Fagin, R., Kolaitis, P.G., Miller, R.J., Popa, L.: Data exchange: Semantics and queryanswering. In: Calvanese, D., Lenzerini, M., Motwani, R. (eds.) ICDT 2003. LNCS,vol. 2572. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)5. Yang, G., Kifer, M.: Reasoning about anonymous resources and meta statements onthe Semantic Web. Journal of Data Semantics 1 (2003)

From SPARQL to rules (and back). In:

Networked graphs: A declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the Web. In:

Taming Existence in RDF Querying

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Open Access LMU ( Ludwig-Maximilians-Univ. München)

Universität München: Elektronischen Publikationen

Crossref