[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Deciding SHACL Shape Containment Through Description Logics Reasoning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Semantic Web – ISWC 2020 (ISWC 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12506))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) allows for formalizing constraints over RDF data graphs. A shape groups a set of constraints that may be fulfilled by nodes in the RDF graph. We investigate the problem of containment between SHACL shapes. One shape is contained in a second shape if every graph node meeting the constraints of the first shape also meets the constraints of the second. To decide shape containment, we map SHACL shape graphs into description logic axioms such that shape containment can be answered by description logic reasoning. We identify several, increasingly tight syntactic restrictions of SHACL for which this approach becomes sound and complete.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
GBP 19.95
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
GBP 71.50
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
GBP 89.99
Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/.

  2. 2.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.13603.

  3. 3.

    http://spinrdf.org/.

References

  1. Abbas, A., Genevès, P., Roisin, C., Layaïda, N.: SPARQL query containment with ShEx constraints. In: Kirikova, M., Nørvåg, K., Papadopoulos, G.A. (eds.) ADBIS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10509, pp. 343–356. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66917-5_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Akhtar, W., Cortés-Calabuig, Á., Paredaens, J.: Constraints in RDF. In: Schewe, K.-D., Thalheim, B. (eds.) SDKB 2010. LNCS, vol. 6834, pp. 23–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23441-5_2

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Lutz, C., Sattler, U.: An Introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, New York (2017)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Beneventano, D., Bergamaschi, S., Sartori, C.: Semantic query optimization by subsumption in OODB. In: Proceedings of the Flexible Query-Answering Systems (FQAS), pp. 167–187. Roskilde University (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boneva, I., Labra Gayo, J.E., Prud’hommeaux, E.G.: Semantics and validation of shapes schemas for RDF. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10587, pp. 104–120. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Calvanese, D.: Finite model reasoning in description logics. In: Proceedings of the KR, pp. 292–303. Morgan Kaufmann (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chaudhuri, S., Vardi, M.: Optimization of real conjunctive queries. In: Proceedings of the PODS, pp. 59–70. ACM (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Corman, J., Florenzano, F., Reutter, J.L., Savković, O.: Validating Shacl constraints over a Sparql endpoint. In: Ghidini, C., Hartig, O., Maleshkova, M., Svátek, V., Cruz, I., Hogan, A., Song, J., Lefrançois, M., Gandon, F. (eds.) ISWC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11778, pp. 145–163. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Corman, J., Reutter, J.L., Savković, O.: Semantics and validation of recursive SHACL. In: Vrandečić, D., Bontcheva, K., Suárez-Figueroa, M.C., Presutti, V., Celino, I., Sabou, M., Kaffee, L.-A., Simperl, E. (eds.) ISWC 2018. LNCS, vol. 11136, pp. 318–336. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00671-6_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Donini, F.M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM TOCL 3(2), 177–225 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer, P.M., Lausen, G., Schätzle, A., Schmidt, M.: RDF constraint checking. In: Proceedings of the EDBT/ICDT, pp. 205–212. CEUR-WS.org (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grandi, F.: On expressive description logics with composition of roles in number restrictions. In: Baaz, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2514, pp. 202–215. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36078-6_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Kazakov, Y.: RIQ and SROIQ are harder than SHOIQ. In: Proceedings of the KR, pp. 274–284. AAAI Press (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Klug, A.: On conjunctive queries containing inequalities. J. ACM 35, 146–160 (1988)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Leinberger, M., Seifer, P., Schon, C., Lämmel, R., Staab, S.: Type checking program code using SHACL. In: Ghidini, C., Hartig, O., Maleshkova, M., Svátek, V., Cruz, I., Hogan, A., Song, J., Lefrançois, M., Gandon, F. (eds.) ISWC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11778, pp. 399–417. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Lutz, C., Areces, C., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Keys, nominals, and concrete domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 23, 667–726 (2004)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Adding integrity constraints to OWL. In: Proceedings of the OWLED. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 258. CEUR-WS.org (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pareti, P., Konstantinidis, G., Magavero, F., Norman, T.J.: SHACL satisfiability and containment. In: Proceedings of the ISWC. LNCS. Springer (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Patel-Schneider, P.F., Franconi, E.: Ontology constraints in incomplete and complete data. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., Heflin, J., Sirin, E., Tudorache, T., Euzenat, J., Hauswirth, M., Parreira, J.X., Hendler, J., Schreiber, G., Bernstein, A., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 444–459. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35176-1_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Rudolph, S.: Foundations of description logics. In: Polleres, A., et al. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2011. LNCS, vol. 6848, pp. 76–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23032-5_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Staworko, S., Wieczorek, P.: Containment of shape expression schemas for RDF. In: Proceedings of the PODS, pp. 303–319. ACM (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tao, J., Sirin, E., Bao, J., McGuinness, D.L.: Integrity constraints in OWL. In: Proceedings of the AAAI. AAAI Press (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of project LISeQ (LA 2672/1-1) by the German Research Foundation (DFG).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Web Science and Technologies, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

    Martin Leinberger & Tjitze Rienstra

  2. The Software Languages Team, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

    Philipp Seifer & Ralf Lämmel

  3. Institute for Parallel and Distributed Systems, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    Steffen Staab

  4. Web and Internet Science Research Group, University of Southampton, Southampton, England

    Steffen Staab

Authors
  1. Martin Leinberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philipp Seifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tjitze Rienstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralf Lämmel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffen Staab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Leinberger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Jeff Z. Pan

  2. University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Valentina Tamma

  3. University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Claudia d’Amato

  4. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

    Krzysztof Janowicz

  5. California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, USA

    Bo Fu

  6. Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria

    Axel Polleres

  7. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, USA

    Oshani Seneviratne

  8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Lalana Kagal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Leinberger, M., Seifer, P., Rienstra, T., Lämmel, R., Staab, S. (2020). Deciding SHACL Shape Containment Through Description Logics Reasoning. In: Pan, J.Z., et al. The Semantic Web – ISWC 2020. ISWC 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12506. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62419-4_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62418-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62419-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation