1 / 6

Bridging the Gap between OWL and Relational Databases

Bridging the Gap between OWL and Relational Databases. Yan Qi CSE 494. Motivation. Integrity Constraints (ICs) in Relation DB Data reasoning (checking db integrity) Schema reasoning (computing query subsumption) Integrity Constraints (ICs) in OWL

elvina
Download Presentation

Bridging the Gap between OWL and Relational Databases

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. Bridging the Gap between OWL and Relational Databases Yan Qi CSE 494

  2. Motivation • Integrity Constraints (ICs) in Relation DB • Data reasoning (checking db integrity) • Schema reasoning (computing query subsumption) • Integrity Constraints (ICs) in OWL • e.g. an inclusion dependency, stating that a social security number must exist for each person. • In RDB, it’s interpreted as a check • In OWL, an existential restriction, (not an error but an inference).

  3. Analysis and Solution • OWL • Description Logic knowledge base • TBox : schema part • ABox : data part • Extended DL knowledge bases • Divide the axioms in TBox as • Standard axioms: imply new facts • Constraint axioms: check if all necessary information is derivable.

  4. Criticism • ICs in OWL can be interpreted as the same way as that in Relation DB. • Answering unions of positive conjunctive queries: ICs can be disregarded if they are satisfied. • Query processing could be optimized. • One concern is the complexity of the implementation of such a OWL reasoner, and the time cost of the process of reasoning. • Think about large OWL file.

  5. Related to our class • A fairly complete comparison of OWL and RDB. • Good understanding of ontology • and integrity constraints • OWL vs. Relational DB • Schema Language • Interpreting the Schema • Domains and Typing • Schema Reasoning • Query Answering • Constrain Checking

  6. What is the problem that the paper is addressing? Why is the problem interesting? • What is the solution that the authors propose? • What is your criticism of the solution presented? • How is it related to what we learned in the class?

More Related