Towards a Scalable, Pragmatic Knowledge Representation Language for the Web

A basic cornerstone of the Semantic Web are formal languages for describing resources in a clear and unambiguous way. Logical underpinnings facilitate automated reasoning about distributed knowledge on the Web and thus make it possible to derive only implicitly available information. Much research is geared to advancing very expressive formalisms that add increasingly complex modelling constructs. However, this increase in language expressivity is often intrinsically linked to higher computational cost and often leads to formalisms that have high theoretical complexity and that are difficult to implement efficiently. In contrast, reasoning in the context of the Web has a distinct set of requirements, namely inference systems that can scale to planetary-size datasets. A reduced level of expressivity is often sufficient for many practical scenarios and crucially, absolutely necessary when reasoning with such massive datasets. These requirements have been acknowledged by active research towards more lightweight formalisms and also by industrial implementations that often implement only tractable subsets of existing standards. In this paper we aim to explore this trend and formulate a basic language, called L2, layered upon RDF as the data-model, that is inherently tractable, easy to implement on common rule engines and motivated by pragmatic considerations concerning the use of language constructs and the means to implement them.

[1]  Peter F. Patel-Schneider,et al.  Next Steps for OWL , 2006, OWLED.

[2]  Jan Chomicki,et al.  Hippo: A System for Computing Consistent Answers to a Class of SQL Queries , 2004, EDBT.

[3]  Herman J. ter Horst,et al.  Combining RDF and Part of OWL with Rules: Semantics, Decidability, Complexity , 2005, SEMWEB.

[4]  James A. Hendler,et al.  The Semantic Web" in Scientific American , 2001 .

[5]  Herman J. ter Horst,et al.  Completeness, decidability and complexity of entailment for RDF Schema and a semantic extension involving the OWL vocabulary , 2005, J. Web Semant..

[6]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  Efficient creation and incremental maintenance of the HOPI index for complex XML document collections , 2005, 21st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'05).

[7]  Gerhard Weikum,et al.  HOPI: An Efficient Connection Index for Complex XML Document Collections , 2004, EDBT.

[8]  Robert Stevens,et al.  The Manchester OWL Syntax , 2006, OWLED.

[9]  Enrico Motta,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2005, 4th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, SEMWEB.

[10]  Sebastian Rudolph,et al.  ELP: Tractable Rules for OWL 2 , 2008, SEMWEB.

[11]  Philip S. Yu,et al.  Dual Labeling: Answering Graph Reachability Queries in Constant Time , 2006, 22nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE'06).

[12]  Georg Gottlob,et al.  Complexity and expressive power of logic programming , 2001, CSUR.

[13]  Dan Brickley,et al.  Rdf vocabulary description language 1.0 : Rdf schema , 2004 .

[14]  Steffen Staab,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008. Proceedings , 2008, SEMWEB.

[15]  James A. Hendler,et al.  A Survey of the Web Ontology Landscape , 2006, SEMWEB.

[16]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  The Tractability of Subsumption in Frame-Based Description Languages , 1984, AAAI.

[17]  Deborah L. McGuinness,et al.  OWL Web ontology language overview , 2004 .

[18]  Franz Baader,et al.  Pushing the EL Envelope Further , 2008, OWLED.

[19]  R. Doyle The American terrorist. , 2001, Scientific American.

[20]  Dean Allemang,et al.  The Semantic Web - ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, Proceedings , 2006, SEMWEB.

[21]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  DL-Lite: Tractable Description Logics for Ontologies , 2005, AAAI.