Stage-oe-small.jpg

Axel Polleres: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

Aus Aifbportal
Wechseln zu:Navigation, Suche
Zeile 7: Zeile 7:
 
Restricting ourselves mostly to a relatively simple entailment regime (RDF Schema), we discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. We treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any assertional RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. As it turns out, a one-size-fits-all semantics does not exist... We note and will discuss that the  
 
Restricting ourselves mostly to a relatively simple entailment regime (RDF Schema), we discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. We treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any assertional RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. As it turns out, a one-size-fits-all semantics does not exist... We note and will discuss that the  
 
problem of updates under entailment regimes is closely related to Updates in Ontology-based-Data-Access (OBDA), where - as a survey of related literature shows - also no standard solution exist either.
 
problem of updates under entailment regimes is closely related to Updates in Ontology-based-Data-Access (OBDA), where - as a survey of related literature shows - also no standard solution exist either.
 
 
 
|Beschreibung EN=Updates in RDF stores have recently been standardised in the SPARQL 1.1 Update specification. However, computing answers entailed by ontologies in triple stores is usually treated orthogonal to updates. Even  
 
|Beschreibung EN=Updates in RDF stores have recently been standardised in the SPARQL 1.1 Update specification. However, computing answers entailed by ontologies in triple stores is usually treated orthogonal to updates. Even  
 
the W3C's recent SPARQL 1.1 Update language and SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes specifications  
 
the W3C's recent SPARQL 1.1 Update language and SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes specifications  
Zeile 14: Zeile 12:
 
Restricting ourselves mostly to a relatively simple entailment regime (RDF Schema), we discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. We treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any assertional RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. As it turns out, a one-size-fits-all semantics does not exist... We note and will discuss that the  
 
Restricting ourselves mostly to a relatively simple entailment regime (RDF Schema), we discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. We treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any assertional RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. As it turns out, a one-size-fits-all semantics does not exist... We note and will discuss that the  
 
problem of updates under entailment regimes is closely related to Updates in Ontology-based-Data-Access (OBDA), where - as a survey of related literature shows - also no standard solution exist either.
 
problem of updates under entailment regimes is closely related to Updates in Ontology-based-Data-Access (OBDA), where - as a survey of related literature shows - also no standard solution exist either.
 
 
 
|Veranstaltungsart=Kolloquium Angewandte Informatik
 
|Veranstaltungsart=Kolloquium Angewandte Informatik
 
|Start=2015/02/26 10:00:00
 
|Start=2015/02/26 10:00:00
Zeile 23: Zeile 19:
 
|Vortragender=Prof.Dr. Axel Polleres
 
|Vortragender=Prof.Dr. Axel Polleres
 
|Eingeladen durch=Rudi Studer
 
|Eingeladen durch=Rudi Studer
|PDF=26.2.Polles.pdf
+
|PDF=26.2..Prof.Polleres.pdf
 
|Forschungsgruppe=Wissensmanagement
 
|Forschungsgruppe=Wissensmanagement
 
|In News anzeigen=True
 
|In News anzeigen=True
 
}}
 
}}

Version vom 13. Februar 2015, 11:58 Uhr

SPARQL1.1 Updates and Entailment - Why the specification is silent about their interaction

Veranstaltungsart:
Kolloquium Angewandte Informatik




Updates in RDF stores have recently been standardised in the SPARQL 1.1 Update specification. However, computing answers entailed by ontologies in triple stores is usually treated orthogonal to updates. Even the W3C's recent SPARQL 1.1 Update language and SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes specifications explicitly exclude a standard behaviour how SPARQL endpoints should treat entailment regimes other than simple entailment in the context of updates. In this talk, we outline different routes to close this gap. Restricting ourselves mostly to a relatively simple entailment regime (RDF Schema), we discuss possible semantics along with potential strategies for implementing them. We treat both, (i) materialised RDF stores, which store all entailed triples explicitly, and (ii) reduced RDF Stores, that is, redundancy-free RDF stores that do not store any assertional RDF triples (corresponding to DL-Lite ABox statements) entailed by others already. As it turns out, a one-size-fits-all semantics does not exist... We note and will discuss that the problem of updates under entailment regimes is closely related to Updates in Ontology-based-Data-Access (OBDA), where - as a survey of related literature shows - also no standard solution exist either.

(Prof.Dr. Axel Polleres)




Start: 26. Februar 2015 um 10:00
Ende: 26. Februar 2015 um 11:00


Im Gebäude 11.40, Raum: 202

Veranstaltung vormerken: (iCal)


Veranstalter: Forschungsgruppe(n) Wissensmanagement
Information: Media:26.2..Prof.Polleres.pdf