1 / 27

Annotated RDF

Annotated RDF. Octavian Udrea Diego Reforgiato Recupero V.S. Subrahmanian University of Maryland. Motivation. Many RDF extensions for specific scenarios: Temporal (Gutierrez et. al 2005) Uncertainty (Dubois et. al 2005, Straccia et al. 2005) Provenance (Carroll et. al 2005)

acton
Download Presentation

Annotated RDF

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Annotated RDF Octavian Udrea Diego Reforgiato Recupero V.S. Subrahmanian University of Maryland

  2. Motivation • Many RDF extensions for specific scenarios: • Temporal (Gutierrez et. al 2005) • Uncertainty (Dubois et. al 2005, Straccia et al. 2005) • Provenance (Carroll et. al 2005) • Can we construct a common syntax and semantics for RDF extensions? • Together with efficient query mechanism

  3. Foundations of aRDF • Annotations are partial orders (A,≤) • Afuzzy ,Atime , Atime-intervals , Apedigree • Cartesian products can generate others • Such as Afuzz-time = Afuzzy X Atime • Builds on annotated logic (Kifer et al. 1992)

  4. aRDF syntax Set of annotated triples (r,p:a,v)

  5. aRDF syntax We’re .9 sure that Max had Adam as an advisor until 2004

  6. aRDF satisfying interpretation • We consider transitive properties as a simple inference capability • A mapping I from the universe of possible triples (r,p,v) to A • A satisfying interpretation I for O has: • For all (r,p:a,v) in O, a ≤ I(r,p,v) • For all paths on transitive properties, the lower bounds of the set of annotations is less than I(r,p,v) • Entailment defined in the usual way

  7. Satisfying interpretation example

  8. Satisfying interpretation example (0.9,2003) ≤ I(Max,hasSupervisor,William)

  9. Satisfying interpretation example

  10. Satisfying interpretation example No matter what we assign to I(Mary,hasSupervisor,William), I will not satisfy O

  11. aRDF consistency • The existence of a satisfying I: • For (r,p:ai,v), the set {ai} has an upper bound • Let Ak(r,p,v) be the set of annotations on the kth p-path from r to v (for transitive p) • The set B = {LB(Ak)} has an upper bound

  12. aRDF consistency results • All RDF instances annotated with partial orders with top elements are consistent • For general partial orders, consistency verification runs in O(p *(n3 * e + n*a2))

  13. aRDF atomic queries • (R,P:A,V) where at most one is variable • Examples: • (Max, ?p:(0.8,2002), William) • (Mary, hasSupervisor:(0.7,2002),?v) • (r,p:a,v) and (r’,p’:a’,v’) are semi-unifiable if there is a substitution θ: • r θ = r’ θ, p θ = p’ θ, v θ = v’ θ

  14. aRDF atomic query answers • The answer to (R,P:A,V) is the set of (r,p:a,v) such that: • (r,p:a,v) is semi-unifiable with (R,P:A,V) and A ≤ a (where applicable) • (r,p:a,v) is entailed by the aRDF ontology • (r,p:a,v) is not entailed by a subset of the answer • The minimal (w.r.t. entailment) set of triples entailed by the theory that semi-unifies with the query

  15. aRDF atomic query examples Query: (Max,?p:(0.8,2002), William) Answer: {(Max, hasSupervisor:(0.9,2003), William)}

  16. aRDF atomic query examples Query: (Mary,hasSupervisor:(0.7,2002), ?v) Answer: {(Mary, hasAdvisor:(0.7,2003), William)}

  17. aRDF theory closure • At each step, add to O one of: • For (r,p:a1,v), (r,p’:a2,v), p’ is a subProperty of p (or p = p’), add (r,p:a,v), where a is a minimal upper bound for a1,a2 • Add (r,p:a,v) for (r,p’:a1,r’), (r’,p’’:a2,v), where • p’,p’’ are subProperty* of p • For all a’, (a’ ≤ a1) and (a’ ≤ a2) => (a’ ≤ a) • Monotonic operator => there exists a fixpoint lfp(O)

  18. Naïve query answer algorithm • Compute closure lfp(O) • Choose semi-unifiable triples with annotations “above” the query’s • Eliminate any triples entailed by subsets

  19. atomicAnswerX algorithms • lfp(O) can be exponential • But the minimal set we look for in the answer is not • atomicAnswerV computes the answer to (R,P:A,V?) queries • atomicAnswerP computes the answer to (R,P?:A,V) queries • conjunctAnswer answers conjunctions of atomic queries

  20. atomicAnswerX algorithms • atomicAnswerV: For the maximal transitive p-paths starting at r, compute: • The lower bound(s) on the sets of annotations • The least upper bound(s) of the previous set • atomicAnswerP: Similar approach for the maximal paths between r and v

  21. atomicAnswerX complexity • atomicAnswerV (and R) are running in time O(n2 * e + n * e * a2) • O(n2 * e + n * e * a2) when annotation is a complete lattice • atomicAnswerP is has the same worst-case complexity • atomicAnswerA is O(n * e * a2) • Complexity results given for finite partial orders • For lattices, the “a” factors dissapear

  22. Experimental results • Existing RDF ontologies with randomly generated annotations • Synthetically generated data up to 100,000 nodes • Also varied number of properties, node degree, number of transitive properties, etc.

  23. Consistency running time

  24. atomicAnswer running time

  25. Applications • We have started using aRDF on the STORY project • http://om.umiacs.umd.edu • An online aRDF system will be released in August 2006 • Features such as graphical editing and annotation, custom annotations, view maintenance

  26. Conclusions • We have presented a general framework for extending RDF • Based on annotated logic • Simple syntax and semantics • Query algorithms are very efficient in practice

  27. Questions and comments

More Related