×

On the relation between SPARQL1.1 and answer set programming. (English) Zbl 1400.68065

Summary: In the context of the emerging Semantic Web and the quest for a common logical framework underpinning its architecture, the relation of rule-based languages such as Answer Set Programming (ASP) and ontology languages such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL) has attracted a lot of attention in the literature over the past years. With its roots in Deductive Databases and Datalog though, ASP shares much more commonality with another Semantic Web standard, namely the Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL). In this paper, we take the recent approval of the SPARQL1.1 standard by the World Wide Web consortium (W3C) as an opportunity to introduce this standard to the Logic Programming community by providing a translation of SPARQL1.1 into ASP. In this translation, we explain and highlight peculiarities of the new W3C standard. Along the way, we survey existing literature on foundations of SPARQL and SPARQL1.1, and also combinations of SPARQL with ontology and rules languages. Thereby, apart from providing the means to implement and support SPARQL natively within Logic Programming engines and particularly ASP engines, we hope to pave the way for further research on a common logical framework for Semantic Web languages, including query languages, from an ASP point of view.

MSC:

68P15 Database theory
68N17 Logic programming
68T30 Knowledge representation
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Abiteboul, S, Hull, R and Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. · Zbl 0848.68031
[2] Alkhateeb, F, Baget, J-F and Euzenat, J. 2009. Extending SPARQL with regular expression patterns (for querying RDF). Journal of Web Semantics, 7: 57-73.
[3] Angles, R., & Gutierrez, C. (2008). The expressive power of SPARQL. In A. P. Sheth et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30 (2008). Proceedings (pp. 114-129). New York, NY: Springer.
[4] Angles, R., & Gutierrez, C. (2011). Subqueries in SPARQL. In P. Barceló & V. Tannen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Alberto Mendelzon International Workshop on Foundations of Data Management, Santiago, Chile, May 9-12, 2011. Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-749/paper19.pdf)
[5] Arenas, M., Bertails, A., Prud’hommeaux, E., & Sequeda, J. (2012, September 27). A direct mapping of relational data to RDF. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-rdb-direct-mapping-20120927/)
[6] Arenas, M., Conca, S., & Pérez, J. (2012). Counting beyond a Yottabyte, or how SPARQL 1.1 property paths will prevent adoption of the standard. In A. Mille, F. L. Gandon, J. Misselis, M. Rabinovich, & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference (2012). WWW 2012, Lyon, France, April 16-20, 2012 (pp. 629-638). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[7] Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C., & Pérez, J. (2009). On the semantics of SPARQL. In R. D. Virgilio, F. Giunchiglia & L. Tanca (Eds.), Semantic Web Information Management: a Model-Based Perspective (pp. 281-307). New York, NY: Springer.
[8] Baader, F, Calvanese, D, McGuinness, DL, Nardi, D and Patel-Schneider, PF, eds. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · Zbl 1058.68107
[9] Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · Zbl 1056.68139
[10] Beckett, D., & Berners-Lee, T. (2008, January 14). Turtle - terse RDF triple language. W3C Team Submission. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/)
[11] Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web, New York, NY: Harper Collins.
[12] Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked data. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html) · Zbl 1353.68014
[13] Boley, H., Kifer, M., Pătrânjan, P.-L., & Polleres, A. (2007). Rule interchange on the web. In G. Antoniou, et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Third International Summer School 2007, Dresden, Germany, September 3-7, 2007, tutorial lectures (pp. 269-309). New York, NY: Springer.
[14] Brewka, G, Eiter, T and Truszczynski, M. 2001. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM, 54(12): 92-103.
[15] Brickley, D., & Guha, R. (2004, February 10). RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/)
[16] Brickley, D., & Miller, L. (2007, November 2). FOAF vocabulary specification 0.91. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/)
[17] Calimeri, F., & Ianni, G. (2005). External sources of computation for answer set solvers. In C. Baral, G. Greco, N. Leone & G. Terracina (Eds.), Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 8th International Conference, LPNMR 2005, Diamante, Italy, September 5-8, 2005, proceedings (pp. 105-118). Berlin: Springer. · Zbl 1152.68400
[18] Carroll, J, Bizer, C, Hayes, P and Stickler, P. 2005. Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics, 3(247-267): 2005
[19] Chekol, M. W. (2013). Analyse statique de requête pour le web sémantique (Static analysis of semantic web queries). PhD thesis, University of Grenoble, France.
[20] Chekol, M. W., Euzenat, J., Genevés, P., & Layaïda, N. (2012). SPARQL query containment under RDFS entailment regime. In B. Gramlich, D. Miller & U. Sattler (Eds.), Automated Reasoning - 6th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2012, Manchester, UK, June 26-29, 2012 (pp. 134-148). New York, NY: Springer. · Zbl 1358.68251
[21] Cyganiak, R. (2005, September 28). A relational algebra for SPARQL (Tech. Rep. No. HPL-2005-170). Bristol: HP Labs.
[22] Dantsin, E, Eiter, T, Gottlob, G and Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 33: 374-425.
[23] Das, S., Sundara, S., & Cyganiak, R. (2012, September 27). R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-r2rml-20120927/)
[24] de Bruijn, J. (2010, June 22). RIF RDF and OWL compatibility. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/)
[25] de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., & Tompits, H. (2007). Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge-base combination. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-12, 2007 (pp. 304-309). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. · Zbl 1351.68273
[26] de Bruijn, J., Franconi, E., & Tessaris, S. (2005). Logical reconstruction of normative RDF. In B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, B. Parsia, & P. F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), Proceedings of the OWLED*05 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions, Galway, Ireland, November 11-12, 2005. Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-188/sub24.pdf)
[27] de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A., & Valverde, A. (2007). Quantified equilibrium logic and hybrid rules. In M. Marchiori, J. Z. Pan & C. de Sainte Marie (Eds.), Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, First International Conference, RR 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, June 7-8, 2007, proceedings (pp. 58-72). Berlin: Springer.
[28] Bruijn, J, Pearce, D, Polleres, A and Valverde, A. 2010. A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases. Knowledge and Information Systems, 25(81-104): 2010
[29] Duerst, M., & Suignard, M. (2005, January). Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard). Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
[30] Eiter, T., Ianni, G., & Krennwallner, T. (2009). Answer set programming: a primer. In S. Tessaris et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Information Systems, 5th International Summer School 2009, Brixen-Bressanone, Italy, August 30-September 4, 2009, tutorial lectures (pp. 40-110). Berlin: Springer. · Zbl 1254.68248
[31] Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., & Polleres, A. (2008). Rules and ontologies for the semantic web. In C. Baroglio, P. A. Bonatti, J. Maluszynski, M. Marchiori, A. Polleres & S. Schaffert (Eds.), Reasoning Web, 4th International Summer School 2008, Venice, Italy, September 7-11, 2008, tutorial lectures (pp. 1-53). New York, NY: Springer.
[32] Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2006). Reasoning with rules and ontologies. In Pedro Barahona, François Bry, Enrico Franconi, Ulrike Sattler & Nicola Henze (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, tutorial lectures (pp. 93-127). New York, NY: Springer.
[33] Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2005). A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer set programming. In L. Pack Kaelbling & A. Saffiotti (Eds.), IJCAI-05, proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-August 5, 2005 (pp. 90-96). Denver, CO: Professional Book Center.
[34] Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2004). Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In Didier Dubois, Christopher A. Welty & Mary-Anne Williams (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR2004), Whistler, Canada, June 2-5, 2004. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press. · Zbl 1183.68595
[35] Eiter, T., Lutz, C., Ortiz, C., & Simkus, M. (2009). Query answering in description logics with transitive roles. In C. Boutilier (Ed.), IJCAI 2009, proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pasadena, California, USA, July 11-17, 2009 (pp. 759-764). Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org. · Zbl 1246.68207
[36] Faber, W., Leone, N., & Pfeifer, G. (2004). Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: semantics and complexity. In J. J. Alferes & J. Leite (Eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 9th European Conference, JELIA 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, September 27-30, 2004, proceedings (pp. 200-212). Berlin: Springer. · Zbl 1111.68380
[37] Gebser, M, Kaminski, R, Kaufmann, B and Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool. · Zbl 1251.68060
[38] Gelder, A. V., Ross, K., & Schlipf, J. S. (1988). Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In Alberto O. Mendelzon & Jan Paredaens (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 1-3, 1998, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 221-230). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[39] Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R. A. Kowalski & K. Bowen (Eds.), Logic Programming, proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, Seattle, Washington, August 15-19, 1988 (pp. 1070-1080). Cambridge, MA, 1988. MIT Press.
[40] Gelfond, M and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9: 365-385. · Zbl 0735.68012
[41] Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., & Sattler, U. (2008). Unions of conjunctive queries in SHOQ. In G. Brewka & J. Lang (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference, KR 2008, Sydney, Australia, September 16-19, 2008 (pp. 252-262). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[42] Glimm, B, Lutz, C, Horrocks, I and Sattler, U. 2008. Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. Journal Of Artificial Intelligence Research, 31: 157-204. · Zbl 1183.68244
[43] Glimm, B., Ogbuji, C., Hawke, S., Herman, I., Parsia, B., Polleres, A., & Seaborne, A. SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. (2013, March 21). SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/)
[44] Glimm, B., & Rudolph, S. (2010). Status QIO: conjunctive query entailment is decidable. In F. Lin, U. Sattler & M. Truszczynski (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, KR 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 9-13, 2010 (pp. 225-235). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[45] Grosof, B. N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., & Decker, S. (2003). Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logics. In The International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, 20-24 May 2003 (pp. 48-57). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[46] Harris, S., & Seaborne, A. (2013, March 21). SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/)
[47] Hayes, P. (2004, February 10). RDF semantics. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/)
[48] Heath, T and Bizer, C. 2011. Linked data: evolving the web into a global data space, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
[49] Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Martello, A., & Polleres, A. (2009). Dynamic querying of mass-storage RDF data with rule-based entailment regimes. In A. Bernstein et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2009, 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-29, 2009. Proceedings (pp. 310-327). New York, NY: Springer.
[50] Kifer, M., & Boley, H. (2012, December 11). RIF overview. W3C Working Group Note. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/)
[51] Kollia, I., Glimm, B., & Horrocks, I. (2011). SPARQL query answering over OWL ontologies. In G. Antoniou, et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications - 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2011, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 29-June 2, 2011, proceedings, part I (p. 382396). New York, NY: Springer.
[52] Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., & Hitzler, P. (2011). OWL and rules. In A. Polleres et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for the Web of Data - 7th International Summer School 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 23-27, 2011, tutorial lectures (pp. 382-415). New York, NY: Springer.
[53] Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., & Hitzler, P. (2007a). Complexity boundaries for Horn description logics. In R. C. Holte & A. Howe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 452-457). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[54] Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., & Hitzler, P. (2007b). Conjunctive queries for a tractable fragment of OWL 1.1. In K. Aberer et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007, Busan, South Korea, November 11-15, 2007 (pp. 310-323). New York, NY: Springer.
[55] Letelier, A., Pérez, J., Pichler, R., & Skritek, S. (2012). Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. In M. Benedikt, M. Krötzsch & M. Lenzerini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012 (pp. 89-100). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[56] Levy, AY and Rousset, M-C. 1998. Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence, 104: 165-209. · Zbl 0908.68166
[57] Lifschitz, V. (1999). Answer set planning. In D. D. Schreye (Ed.), Logic Programming: the 1999 International Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, November 29-December 4, 1999 (pp. 23-37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[58] Losemann, K., & Martens, W. (2012). The complexity of evaluating path expressions in SPARQL. In M. Benedikt, M. Krötzsch & M. Lenzerini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012 (pp. 101-112). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[59] Lu, J., Cao, F., Ma, L., Yu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2007). An effective SPARQL support over relational databases. In V. Christophides, M. Collard & C. Gutierrez (Eds.), Semantic Web, Ontologies and Databases, VLDB Workshop, SWDB-ODBIS 2007, Vienna, Austria, September 24, 2007, revised selected papers (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Springer.
[60] Lukasiewicz, T. 2010. A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22: 1577-1592.
[61] Manola, F., & Miller, E. (2004, February 10). RDF primer. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/)
[62] Marek, V. W. (1999). Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In K. R. Apt, V. W. Marek, M. Truszczynski & D. S. Warren (Eds.), In the logic programming paradigm: a 25-year perspective (pp. 375-398). Berlin: Springer. · Zbl 0979.68524
[63] Motik, B., Grau, B. C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., & Lutz, C. (Eds.). (2012, December 11). OWL 2 web ontology language profiles (second edition). W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/ REC-owl2-profiles-20121211/)
[64] Motik, B., & Rosati, R. (2007). A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-12, 2007 (pp. 477-482). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[65] Motik, B, Sattler, U and Studer, R. 2005. Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3: 41-60.
[66] Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25: 241-273. · Zbl 0940.68018
[67] Niemelä, I., Simons, P., & Soininen, T. (1999). Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In M. Gelfond, N. Leone & G. Pfeifer (Eds.), Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 5th International Conference, LPNMR’99, El Paso, Texas, USA, December 2-4, 1999, proceedings (pp. 317-331). New York, NY: Springer. · Zbl 0952.68029
[68] Pearce, D., & Valverde, A. (2008). Quantified equilibrium logic and foundations for answer set programs. In M. Garcia de la Banda & E. Pontelli (Eds.), Logic Programming, 24th International Conference, ICLP 2008, Udine, Italy, December 9-13 2008, proceedings (pp. 546-560). New York, NY: Springer. · Zbl 1185.68175
[69] Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2006). Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. In I. F. Cruz, et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, proceedings (pp. 30-43). New York, NY: Springer.
[70] Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2008). nSPARQL: a navigational language for RDF. In A. P. Sheth et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008. Proceedings (pp. 66-81). New York, NY: Springer.
[71] Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2009). Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 34 (3), Article 16. doi: 10.1145/1567274.1567278.
[72] Polleres, A. (2007). From SPARQL to rules (and back). In C. L. Williamson, M. E. Zurko, P. F. Patel-Schneider & P. J. Shenoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 8-12, 2007 (pp. 787-796). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[73] Polleres, A. (2013). Agreement technologies and the semantic web. In S. Ossowski (Ed.), Agreement technologies (pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Springer.
[74] Polleres, A., Scharffe, F., & Schindlauer, R. (2007). SPARQL++ for mapping between RDF vocabularies. In R. Meersman & Z. Tari (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: OTM Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS 2007, Vilamoura, Portugal, November 25-30, 2007, proceedings, part I (pp. 878-896). New York, NY: Springer.
[75] Polleres, A., & Schindlauer, R. (2007). dlvhex-sparql: a SPARQL-compliant query engine based on dlvhex. In A. Polleres, D. Pearce, S. Heymans & E. Ruckhaus (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICLP’07 Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, ALPSWS 2007, Porto, Portugal, September 13th, 2007 (pp. 3-12). Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org.
[76] Prud’hommeaux, E., & Seaborne, A. (2008, January 15). SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/)
[77] Przymusinski, T. C. (1988). On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker (Ed.), Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming (pp. 193-216). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann. · Zbl 0726.68067
[78] Rosati, R. 2005. On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3: 61-73.
[79] Rosati, R. (2005). Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In F. Fages & S. Soliman (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Third International Workshop, PPSWR 2005, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, September 11-16, 2005, proceedings (pp. 50-64). New York, NY: Springer.
[80] Rosati, R. (2006). Integrating ontologies and rules: semantic and computational issues. In P. Barahona, F. Bry, E. Franconi, U. Sattler & N. Henze (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, tutorial lectures (pp. 128-151). New York, NY: Springer.
[81] Rosati, R. (2006). ##img####img## + log: tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In P. Doherty, J. Mylopoulos & C. Welty (Eds.), Proceedings, Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2-5, 2006 (pp. 68-78). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
[82] Schenk, S., & Staab, S. (2007). Networked RDF graphs. Universität Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.uni-koblenz.de/ sschenk/publications/2006/ngtr.pdf)
[83] Schenk, S., & Staab, S. (2008). Networked graphs: a declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the web. In J. Huai, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2008, Beijing, China, April 21-25, 2008 (pp. 585-594). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[84] Schindlauer, R. 2006. Answer-set programming for the semantic web, Vienna University of Technology: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
[85] Sequeda, M., Meier, M., & Lausen, G. (2010). Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In L. Segoufin (Ed.), Database Theory - ICDT 2010, 13th International Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, March 23-25, 2010, proceedings (pp. 4-33). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[86] Sequeda, J., Arenas, M., & Miranker, D. P. (2012). On directly mapping relational databases to RDF and OWL. In A. Mille, F. L. Gandon, J. Misselis, M. Rabinovich & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, WWW 2012, Lyon, France, April 16-20, 2012 (pp. 649-658). New York, NY: ACM Press.
[87] Smith, M. K., Welty, C., & McGuinness, D. L. (2004, February 10). OWL web ontology language guide. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/)
[88] SQL-99. (1999, October 1). Information technology - database language SQL - part 3: call level interface (SQL/CLI) (Tech. Rep. No. INCITS/ISO/IEC 9075-3). INCITS/ ISO/IEC. (Standard specification.).
[89] Ullman, JD. 1989. Principles of database and knowledge-base systems, New York, NY: Computer Science Press.
[90] W3C OWL 2 Working Group. (2012, December 11). OWL 2 web ontology language document overview (second edition). W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.