Table Of Content1
Inference rules for RDF(S) and OWL in N3Logic
Dominik Tomaszuk Institute of Computer Science
University of Bialystok
Poland
Email: [email protected]
Abstract—This paper presents inference rules for Resource infinite)setofblanknodes,Lthesetofliterals.AnRDFtriple
Description Framework (RDF), RDF Schema (RDFS) and Web t is defined as a triple t=(cid:104)s,p,o(cid:105) where s∈I∪B is called
Ontology Language (OWL). Our formalization is based on
6 the subject, p ∈ I is called the predicate and o ∈ I ∪B∪L
Notation 3 Logic, which extended RDF by logical symbols and
1 is called the object.
createdSemanticWeblogicfordeductiveRDFgraphstores.We
0
alsoproposeOWL-PthatisalightweightformalismofOWLand
2 TheelementalconstituentsoftheRDFdatamodelareRDF
supportssoftinferencesbyomittingcomplexlanguageconstructs.
termsthatcanbeusedinreferencetoresources:anythingwith
n
a identity. The set of RDF terms is divided into three disjoint
J subsets: IRIs, literals, and blank nodes.
1 I. INTRODUCTION
Definition 2 (IRIs). IRIs serve as global identifiers that can
1
Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a general be used to identify any resource.
] methodforconceptualdescriptionormodelingofinformation
B that is implemented in web resources. RDF Schema (RDFS) Definition 3 (Literals). Literals are a set of lexical values. It
D extends RDF to classes providing basic elements for the can be a set of plain strings, such as "Apple", optionally
with an associated language tag, such as "Apple"@en.
. description of vocabularies. OWL adds more vocabulary for
s
c describingpropertiesandclassesi.e.relationsbetweenclasses, Remark 1. In RDF 1.1 literals comprise
[ cardinality, and richer typing of properties. Unfortunately,
a lexical string and a datatype, such as
1 OWLhashighworst-casecomplexityresultsforkeyinference "1"ˆˆhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int.
v problems.Toovercomethisproblemweproposealightweight
0 OWL profile called OWL-P. Remark 2. In literals datatypes are identified by IRIs, where
5 A rule is perhaps one of the most understandable notion RDF borrows many of the datatypes defined in XML Schema
6 in computer science. It consists of the condition and the 1.1 [26].
2
conclusion.Ifsomeconditionthatischeckableinsomedataset
0 Definition 4 (Blank nodes). Blank nodes are defined as
1. holds, then the conclusion is processed. In the same way existential variables used to denote the existence of some
RDF(S) and OWL entailments work.
0 resource for which an IRI or literal is not given.
6 The paper is constructed according to sections. Section II
1 presentsRDFandNotation3Logicconcepts.InSectionIIIwe Remark 3. Blank nodes are inconstant or stable identifiers
: presentinferencerulesforRDF.RDFSandOWLinN3Logic. and are in all cases locally scoped to the RDF store or the
v
i Section IV is devoted to related work. The paper ends with RDF file.
X
conclusions.
AcollectionofRDFtriplesintrinsicallyrepresentsalabeled
r
a directedmultigraph.Thenodesarethesubjectsandobjectsof
II. PRELIMINARIES theirtriples.RDFisoftenreferredtoasbeinggraphstructured
The RDF data model rests on the concept of creating web- data where each (cid:104)s,p,o(cid:105) triple can be interpreted as an edge
p
resource statements in the form of subject-predicate-object s−→o.
expressions, which in the RDF terminology, are referred to
Definition5(RDFgraph). LetO =I∪B∪LandS =I∪B,
as triples (or statements).
then G⊂S×I×O is a finite subset of RDF triples, which
An RDF triple comprises a subject, a predicate, and an
is called RDF graph.
object.In[28],themeaningofsubject,predicateandobjectis
explained. The subject denotes a resource, the object fills the On the other hand, in the Semantic Web environment
value of the relation, the predicate refers to the resource’s there is a Notation3 format, which offers a new human-
characteristics or aspects and expresses a subject – object readableserializationofRDFmodelbutitalsoextendedRDF
relationship. The predicate denotes a binary relation, also by logical symbols and created a new Semantic Web logic
known as a property. called Notation3 Logic (N3Logic). Following [2], we provide
Following[28],weprovidedefinitionsofRDFtriplesbelow. definitions of N3Logic below.
Definition 1 (RDF triple). Assume that I is the set of all Definition 6 (N3Logic alphabet). A N3Logic alphabet A
N3
Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) references, B (an consists of the following disjoint classes of symbols:
2
TABLEIII
1) asetI ofIRIsymbolsbeginningwith<andendingwith
VOCABULARYTERMSUSEDINLODSNAPSHOT2015
>,
2) a set L of literals beginning and ending with ", vocterms
owl:AllDifferent 111
3) a set V of variables, V = B∪V , where B is a set of
U owl:AllDisjointClasses 21
existential variables (blank nodes in RDF-sense) start owl:AllDisjointProperties 13
with _: and V is a set of universal variables start owl:allValuesFrom 126330
U
owl:assertionProperty 0
with ?,
owl:AsymmetricProperty 0
4) brackets {, }, owl:cardinality 23910
5) a logical implication =>, owl:complementOf 873
owl:DatatypeProperty 27471
6) a period .,
owl:differentFrom 784
7) a period @false. owl:disjointUnionOf 0
owl:disjointWith 3743
Remark 4. Notation3 allows to abbreviate IRIs by using owl:equivalentClass 29708
prefixes. Instead of writing <http://example.com>, we owl:equivalentProperty 201
owl:FunctionalProperty 3730
can write ex:.
owl:hasKey 5
owl:hasSelf 3
Remark 5. Each IRI, variable and literal is an expression.
owl:hasValue 1877
owl:intersectionOf 2681
Remark 6. {f} is an expression called formula. owl:InverseFunctionalProperty 94
owl:inverseOf 1341
Remark 7. e1 => e2 is a formula called implication. owl:IrreflexiveProperty 0
owl:maxCardinality 257371
InNotation3literals,IRIs,variablesorevenformulaexpres- owl:minCardinality 455203
sions can be subjects, objects or predicates. owl:ObjectProperty 40330
owl:oneOf 853
owl:propertyChainAxiom 68
owl:propertyDisjointWith 4
III. INFERENCERULES owl:qualifiedCardinality 109
owl:qualifiedMaxCardinality 2
Inthissection,weintroduceinferencerulesforRDF,RDFS owl:qualifiedMinCardinality 20
and OWL. Inference rules connected with RDF(S) and OWL owl:sameAs 3967150
owl:someValuesFrom 4446
are basis of the deductive RDF graph stores.
owl:sourceIndiviual 0
owl:SymmetricProperty 194
Definition 7 (Deductive RDF graph store). A deductive RDF
owl:targetIndividual 0
graphstoreisanentitywhichremembersRDFtriplesandcan owl:targetValue 11
generatenewonesundercertainconditionsthroughdeduction owl:TransitiveProperty 267
owl:unionOf 53735
or inference. It can answer queries about the combined given
rdfs:domain 111865
and inferred triples. rdfs:range 59252
rdfs:subClassOf 1339391
rdfs:subPropertyOf 13416
A. RDF and RDFS
In Table I we present patterns which hold by RDF and IV. RELATEDWORK
RDFS entailments. All rules are tested in reasoning engines
One of the most important general purpose logic program-
such as FuXi1 and cwm2.
minglanguageisProlog[4].Itisdeclarative,whichmeansthat
theprogramlogicisdeclaredintermsofrelations,represented
as facts and rules. Yet anoder declarative language is Datalog
B. OWL
[5], which is syntactically a subset of Prolog. Apart from the
In Table II we analyze existing proposals for different Notation3,thereareotherrule-basedinferenceenginesformats
OWL2 profiles: RDFS++ [1], L2 [6], RDF 3.0/OWLPrime fortheSemanticWeb,suchas:FOL-RuleML[8],SWRL[12],
[10], OWLSIF/pD* [27], OWL-LD [7] and OWL-RL [20]. RIF [14], R-DEVICE [3], TRIPLE [25], Jena rule3 and SPIN
We check which terms are most commonly used and propose [17].
a new version of OWL 2 called OWL-P. We also considered FOL-RuleML (First-order Logic Rule Markup Language)
time complexity for detecting a required rule application and [8] is a rule language for expressing first-order logic for the
frequently used vocabulary terms in our corpus. The snapshot web.ItisasublanguageofRuleML[9].InFOL-RuleMLeach
(Table III) is built by [13] and use seeds from [24]. of rules consists of a set of statements called an atom. The
This profile of OWL2 is simpler that OWL-RL. It drops atomisaformwhichconsistsofobjectswhichareindividuals
support for restriction and cardinality classes, class relation- or variables, and a relation between them.
ships and list-based axioms. In the Table IV, Table V and we SWRL (Semantic Web Rule Language) [12] is based on
present inference rules of OWL-P. OWL [21] and Unary/Binary Datalog RuleML, which sublan-
guage of the RuleML. It extends the set of OWL axioms to
1https://github.com/RDFLib/FuXi
2http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html 3http://jena.apache.org/documentation/inference
3
TABLEI
INFERENCERULESFORRDFANDRDFS
Conditions Conclusions
{?S ?P ?O} => {?P rdf:type rdf:Property}.
{?P rdfs:domain ?C. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S rdf:type ?C}.
{?P rdfs:range ?C. ?S ?P ?O} => {?O rdf:type ?C}.
{?S ?P ?O} => {?S rdf:type rdfs:Resource}.
{?S ?P ?O} => {?O rdf:type rdfs:Resource}.
{?Q rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R. ?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?Q} => {?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R}.
{?Q rdf:type rdf:Property} => {?Q rdfs:subPropertyOf ?Q}.
{?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S ?R ?O}.
{?C rdf:type rdfs:Class} => {?C rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource}.
{?A rdfs:subClassOf ?B. ?S rdf:type ?A} => {?S rdf:type ?B}.
{?Q rdf:type rdfs:Class} => {?Q rdfs:subClassOf ?Q}.
{?B rdfs:subClassOf ?C. ?A rdfs:subClassOf ?B} => {?A rdfs:subClassOf ?C}.
{?X rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty} => {?X rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member}.
{?X rdf:type rdfs:Datatype} => {?X rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal}.
TABLEII
COMPARISONOFOWLPROFILES
OWL-P RDFS++ L2 RDFS3.0 OWLSIF OWL-LD OWL-RL
OWLPrime pD*
owl:AllDifferent
owl:AllDisjointClasses
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:AllDisjointProperties
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:allValuesFrom
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:assertionProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:AsymmetricProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:cardinality
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:complementOf
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:DatatypeProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:differentFrom
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:disjointUnionof
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:disjointWith
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:equivalentClass
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:equivalentProperty
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:FunctionalProperty
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:hasKey
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:hasSelf
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:hasValue
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:intersectionof
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:inverseOf
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:IrreflexiveProperty
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:maxCardinality
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:minCardinality
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:ObjectProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:oneOf
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:propertyChainAxiom
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:propertyDisjointWith
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:qualifiedCardinality
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:qualifiedMaxCardinality
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:qualifiedMinCardinality
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:sameAs
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:someValuesFrom
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:sourceIndiviual
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:SymmetricProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:targetIndividual
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:targetValue
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:TransitiveProperty
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
owl:unionof
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
rdfs:domain
(cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:52) (cid:50)(cid:8)
rdfs:range
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
rdfs:subClassOf
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
rdfs:subPropertyOf
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
(cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8) (cid:50)(cid:8)
4
TABLEIV
INFERENCERULESFOROWL-PPROPERTIES
Conditions Conclusions
{?S ?P ?O} => {?S owl:sameAs ?S. ?P owl:sameAs ?P.
?O owl:sameAs ?O}.
{?S owl:sameAs ?O} => {?O owl:sameAs ?S}.
{?Q owl:sameAs ?R. ?R owl:sameAs ?P} => {?Q owl:sameAs ?P}.
{?S owl:sameAs ?S2. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S2 ?P ?O}.
{?P owl:sameAs ?P2. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S ?P2 ?O}.
{?O owl:sameAs ?O2. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S ?P ?O2}.
{?Q owl:sameAs ?R. ?Q owl:differentFrom ?R} => {@false}.
{?P rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty.
?Q ?P ?R1. ?Q ?P ?R2} => {?R1 owl:sameAs ?R2}.
{?P rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty.
?Q1 ?P ?R. ?Q2 ?P ?R} => {?Q1 owl:sameAs ?Q2}.
{?P rdf:type owl:IrreflexiveProperty. ?Q ?P ?Q} => {@false}.
{?P rdf:type owl:SymmetricProperty. ?Q ?P ?R} => {?R ?P ?Q}.
{?P rdf:type owl:AsymmetricProperty. ?Q ?P ?R. ?R ?P ?Q } => {@false}.
{?P rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty. ?Q ?P ?R. ?R ?P ?P} => {?Q ?P ?P}.
{?P1 owl:equivalentProperty ?P2. ?Q ?P1 ?R} => {?Q ?P2 ?R}.
{?P1 owl:equivalentProperty ?P2. ?Q ?P2 ?R} => {?Q ?P1 ?R}.
{?P1 owl:propertyDisjointWith ?P2. ?Q ?P1 ?R. ?Q ?P2 ?R} => {@false}.
{?P1 owl:inverseOf ?P2. ?Q ?P1 ?R} => {?R ?P2 ?Q}.
{?P1 owl:inverseOf ?P2 . ?Q ?P2 ?R} => {?R ?P1 ?Q}.
TABLEV
INFERENCERULESFOROWL-PCLASSES
Conditions Conclusions
{?A owl:equivalentClass ?B . ?x rdf:type ?A} => {?x a ?B}.
{?A owl:equivalentClass ?B . ?x rdf:type ?B} => {?x a ?A}.
{?A owl:disjointWith ?B.
{ ?x rdf:type ?A. ?x rdf:type ?B} => {@false}
{?C rdf:type owl:Class} => {?C rdfs:subClassOf ?C. ?C owl:Thing.
?C owl:equivalentClass ?C.
owl:Nothing rdfs:subClassOf ?C}.
{?A owl:equivalentClass ?B} => {?A rdfs:subClassOf ?B. ?B rdfs:subClassOf ?A}.
{?A rdfs:subClassOf ?B.
?B rdfs:subClassOf ?A} => {?A owl:equivalentClass ?B}.
{?P rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty} => {?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?P.
?P owl:equivalentProperty ?P}.
{?P rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty} => {?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?P.
?P owl:equivalentProperty ?P}.
{?P owl:equivalentProperty ?R} => {?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R.
?R rdfs:subPropertyOf ?P}.
{?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R.
?R rdfs:subPropertyOf ?P} => {?P owl:equivalentProperty ?R}.
include Horn-like rules. Logical operators and quantifications supportsasecond-ordersyntax,wherevariablescanrangeover
supports of SWRL are the same as in RuleML. Moreover, classes and properties. It provides a RuleML-like syntax.
RuleMLcontentscanbepartsofSWRLcontent.Axiomsmay TRIPLE [25] is an RDF rule (query, inference, and trans-
consist of OWL, RDF and rule axioms. A relation can be an formation) language, with a layered and modular nature. It is
IRI, a data range, an OWL property or a built-in relation. An basedonHornLogic[11]andF-Logic[16].RulesinTRIPLE
object can be a variable, an individual, a literal value or a areusedfortransientqueryingandcannotbeusedfordefining
blank node. and maintaining views.
RIF (Rule Interchange Format) [14] is a standard for SPIN (SPARQL Inferencing Notation) [17] is a constraint
exchanging rules among disparate systems. It focused on and SPARQL-based rule language for RDF. It can link class
exchange rather than developing a single one-fits-all rule withqueriestocaptureconstraintsandruleswhichdescribethe
language. It can be separated into a number of parts, RIF- behavior of those classes. SPIN is also a method to represent
core [23] which is the common core of all RIF dialects, queries as templates. It can represent SPARQL statement as
RIF-BLD(BasicLogicDialect)[15]comprisingbasicdialects RDF triples. That proposal allows to declare new SPARQL
(i.e. Horn rules) for writing rules, RIF-PRD [18] (Production functions.
Rule Dialect) for representing production rules and RIF-DTB Jena rule is a rule format used only by inference engine in
(Datatypes and Built-in Functions) [22] comprising a set of the Jena framework [19]. The rule language syntax is based
datatypes and built-in functions. on RDF. It uses the triple representation, which is similar to
R-DEVICE [3] is a deductive rule language for reasoning Notation3 except that a rule name can be specified in a rule.
about RDF data. In R-DEVICE resources are represented There are not any formula notation, and built-in functions are
as objects and RDF properties are realized as multi-slots. It written in function terms.
5
V. CONCLUSIONS [21] Bijan Parsia, Sebastian Rudolph, Markus Kro¨tzsch, Peter Patel-
Schneider, and Pascal Hitzler. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language
This paper define how knowledge and logic might be han-
Primer (Second Edition). W3C recommendation, World Wide Web
dled on the Semantic Web environment. We present inference Consortium, December 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-
rules RDF, RDF Schema and OWL. All rules are tested in primer-20121211/.
[22] Axel Polleres, Michael Kifer, and Harold Boley. RIF Datatypes and
reasoning engines. Our formalization is based on Notation 3
Built-Ins 1.0 (Second Edition). W3C recommendation, World Wide
Logic, which extended RDF by logical symbols and created a WebConsortium,February2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-
newSemanticWeblogic.Moreover,weproposealightweight dtb-20130205/.
[23] Dave Reynolds, Michael Kifer, Axel Polleres, Harold Boley, Adrian
OWL profile called OWL-P. Our proposed rule will be useful
Paschke, and Gary Hallmark. RIF Core Dialect (Second Edition).
for deductive RDF graph stores. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2013.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-core-20130205/.
REFERENCES [24] MaxSchmachtenberg,ChristianBizer,andHeikoPaulheim. Adoption
of the linked data best practices in different topical domains. In The
[1] Overviewofrdfs++.http://franz.com/agraph/support/learning/Overview- SemanticWeb–ISWC2014,pages245–260.Springer,2014.
of-RDFS++.lhtml. Accessed:2016-01-06. [25] MichaelSintekandStefanDecker. TRIPLE-AnRDFQuery,Inference,
[2] Do¨rtheArndt,RubenVerborgh,JosDeRoo,HongSun,ErikMannens, andTransformationLanguage. InINAP,pages47–56,2001.
and Rik Van de Walle. Semantics of Notation3 Logic: A solution for [26] Michael Sperberg-McQueen, Ashok Malhotra, Paul V. Biron,
implicitquantification.InProceedingsofthe9thInternationalWebRule Sandy Gao, Henry Thompson, and David Peterson. W3C XML
Symposium,August2015. Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes. W3C
[3] NickBassiliadesandIoannisVlahavas. R-device:Adeductiverdfrule recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, April 2012.
language. InRulesandRuleMarkupLanguagesfortheSemanticWeb, http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-xmlschema11-2-20120405/.
pages65–80.Springer,2004. [27] Herman J ter Horst. Completeness, decidability and complexity of
[4] WilliamClocksinandChristopherSMellish.ProgramminginPROLOG. entailment for rdf schema and a semantic extension involving the owl
SpringerScience&BusinessMedia,2003. vocabulary. WebSemantics:Science,ServicesandAgentsontheWorld
[5] ThomasEiter,GeorgGottlob,andHeikkiMannila. Disjunctivedatalog. WideWeb,3(2):79–115,2005.
ACMTransactionsonDatabaseSystems(TODS),22(3):364–418,1997. [28] David Wood, Markus Lanthaler, and Richard Cyganiak. RDF 1.1
[6] FlorianFischer,GulayUnel,BarryBishop,andDieterFensel. Towards ConceptsandAbstractSyntax.W3Crecommendation,WorldWideWeb
a scalable, pragmatic knowledge representation language for the web. Consortium, February 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-
InPerspectivesofSystemsInformatics,pages124–134.Springer,2010. concepts-20140225/.
[7] Birte Glimm, Aidan Hogan, Markus Krotzsch, and Axel
Polleres. Owl ld: Entailment ruleset and implementational notes.
http://semanticweb.org/OWLLD/.
[8] MikeDeanBenjaminGrosofMichaelSintekBruceSpencerSaidTabet
HaroldBoleyandGerdWagner. FOLRuleML:TheFirst-OrderLogic
WebLanguage.Technicalreport,November2004.http://ruleml.org/fol/.
[9] Tara Athan Adrian Paschke Adrian Giurca Nick Bassili-
ades Guido Governatori Monica Palmirani Adam Wyner
Gen Zou Harold Boley and Zhili Zhao. Specification
of Deliberation RuleML 1.01. Technical report, 2012.
http://wiki.ruleml.org/index.php/Specification of Deliberation RuleML 1.01.
[10] Jim Hendler. Rdfs 3.0. In W3C Workshop – RDF Next Steps. World
WideWeb,2010.
[11] AlfredHorn. Onsentenceswhicharetrueofdirectunionsofalgebras.
TheJournalofSymbolicLogic,16(01):14–21,1951.
[12] Ian Horrocks, Peter F Patel-Schneider, Harold Boley, Said Tabet,
Benjamin Grosof, Mike Dean, et al. SWRL: A seman-
tic web rule language combining OWL and RuleML. W3C
member submission, World Wide Web Consortium, May 2004.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-SWRL-20040521/.
[13] RobertIsele,Ju¨rgenUmbrich,ChrisBizer,andAndreasHarth. LDSpi- Dominik Tomaszuk Dr. Dominik Tomaszuk is a
der: An open-source crawling framework for the web of linked data. researcherattheUniversityofBialystok.Hiscurrent
In Proceedings of 9th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC researchfocusesonRDF,datastreams,andNoSQL
2010)PostersandDemos,2010. databases.
[14] Michael Kifer. Rule interchange format: The framework. In Web
reasoningandrulesystems,pages1–11.Springer,2008.
[15] MichaelKiferandHaroldBoley.RIFBasicLogicDialect(SecondEdi-
tion). W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February
2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-bld-20130205/.
[16] MichaelKiferandGeorgLausen. F-logic:ahigher-orderlanguagefor
reasoning about objects, inheritance, and scheme. In ACM SIGMOD
Record,volume18,pages134–146.ACM,1989.
[17] Holger Knublauch, James A. Hendle, and Kingsley Ide-
hen. SPIN - Overview and Motivation. W3C member
submission, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2011.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-overview-20110222/.
[18] Christian de Sainte Marie, Adrian Paschke, and Gary Hall-
mark. RIF Production Rule Dialect (Second Edition). W3C
recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, February 2013.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rif-prd-20130205/.
[19] BrianMcBride.Jena:Asemanticwebtoolkit.IEEEInternetcomputing,
(6):55–59,2002.
[20] Boris Motik, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Achille Fokoue,
andZheWu. OWL2webontologylanguageprofiles(secondedition).
W3Crecommendation,WorldWideWebConsortium,December2012.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-profiles-20121211/.
