Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its ingredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines consuming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base themselves on a combination of different formalisms, e.g. Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to support the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates defined in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough.

[1]  Oliver Vornberger,et al.  Enabling user to user interactions in web lectures with history-aware user awareness , 2011, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[2]  Andreas Harth,et al.  Rules with Contextually Scoped Negation , 2006, ESWC.

[3]  Alexander Schirrer,et al.  Overview and Motivation , 2015 .

[4]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Quality assessment for Linked Data: A Survey , 2015, Semantic Web.

[5]  Harald Sack,et al.  WhoKnows? Evaluating linked data heuristics with a quiz that cleans up DBpedia , 2011, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ..

[6]  Jos de Bruijn,et al.  A Realistic Architecture for the Semantic Web , 2005, RuleML.

[7]  Thomas Hartmann Validation Framework for RDF-based Constraint Languages , 2016 .

[8]  Ruben Verborgh,et al.  Drawing Conclusions from Linked Data on the Web: The EYE Reasoner , 2015, IEEE Software.

[9]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Semantically Enhanced Quality Assurance in the JURION Business Use Case , 2016, ESWC.

[10]  Rik Van de Walle,et al.  Improving OWL RL Reasoning in N3 by Using Specialized Rules , 2015, OWLED.

[11]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Nonmonotonic Reasoning in FLORA-2 , 2005, LPNMR.

[12]  Rik Van de Walle,et al.  Semantics of Notation3 Logic: A Solution for Implicit Quantification , 2015, RuleML.

[13]  Jiao Tao,et al.  Integrity constraints for the semantic web: an OWL 2 DL extension , 2012 .

[14]  James A. Hendler,et al.  N3Logic: A logical framework for the World Wide Web , 2007, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[15]  Stefan Schlobach,et al.  LOD Lab: Experiments at LOD Scale , 2015, International Semantic Web Conference.

[16]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Rule Interchange Format: The Framework , 2008, RuleML.

[17]  Boris Motik,et al.  Adding Integrity Constraints to OWL , 2007, OWLED.

[18]  Michael Kifer,et al.  Logical foundations of object-oriented and frame-based languages , 1995, JACM.

[19]  Kai Eckert,et al.  The role of reasoning for RDF validation , 2015, SEMANTICS.

[20]  Jiao Tao,et al.  Towards Integrity Constraints in OWL , 2009, OWLED.

[21]  Gerd Wagner,et al.  Supporting Open and Closed World Reasoning on the Web , 2006, PPSWR.

[22]  Rik Van de Walle,et al.  Ontology Reasoning Using Rules in an eHealth Context , 2015, RuleML.

[23]  Jens Lehmann,et al.  Test-driven evaluation of linked data quality , 2014, WWW.