Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper describes our tools and method for an evaluation of the practical and logical implications of combining common linked data vocabularies into a single local logical model for the purpose of reasoning or performing quality evaluations. These vocabularies need to be unified to form a combined model because they reference or reuse terms from other linked data vocabularies and thus the definitions of those terms must be imported. We found that strong interdependencies between vocabularies are common and that a significant number of logical and practical problems make this model unification inconsistent. In addition to identifying problems, this paper suggests a set of recommendations for linked data ontology design best practice. Finally we make some suggestions for improving OWL’s support for distributed authoring and ontology reuse.

Keywords

Linked data reasoning data quality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berners-Lee,

Hendler and

Lassila, The semantic web, Scientific American, 284(5) (2001), 29–37.

Bizer, Quality-driven information filtering in the context of web-based information systems, PhD thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 2007.

Bizer,

Heath and

Berners-Lee, Linked data – The story so far, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems5(3) (2009), 1–22. doi:10.4018/jswis.2009081901.

Bourbaki, Univers, in: Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois Marie – 1963–1964 – Théorie des Topos et Cohomologie étale des Schémas (SGA 4), Tome 1 – Theorie des Topos,

Artin,

Grothendieck and

J.-L.

Verdier, eds, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 269, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, pp. 185–217, (in French).

Courtot,

Gibson,

A.L.

Lister,

Malone,

Schober,

R.R.

Brinkman and

Ruttenberg, MIREOT: The minimum information to reference an external ontology term, in: Conference Proceedings, ICBO, International Conference on Biomedical Ontology,

Smith, ed., Buffalo, NY, USA, July 24–26, 2009, pp. 87–90.

Cuenca Grau,

Horrocks,

Motik,

Parsia,

Patel-Schneider and

Sattler, OWL 2: The next step for OWL, Journal of Web Semantics6(4) (2008), 309–322. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2008.05.001.

Daintith, A Dictionary of Computing, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Debattista,

Lange and

Auer, Luzzu – A framework for linked data quality assessment, in: Proceedings of the ISWC 2015 Posters & Demonstrations Track Co-Located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2015), Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11, 2015,

Villata,

J.Z.

Pan and

Dragoni, eds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1486, CEUR-WS.org, 2015, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1486/paper_74.pdf .

Demartini,

D.E.

Difallah,

Cudré-Mauroux, Large-scale linked data integration using probabilistic reasoning and crowdsourcing, The VLDB Journal22(5) (2013), 665–687. doi:10.1007/s00778-013-0324-z.

10.

K.C.

Feeney,

O’Sullivan,

Tai and

Brennan, Improving curated web-data quality with structured harvesting and assessment, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems10(2) (2014), 35–62. doi:10.4018/ijswis.2014040103.

11.

Fürber and

Hepp, Using SPARQL and SPIN for data quality management on the semantic web, in: Business Information Systems, 13th International Conference, BIS 2010, Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, May 3–5, 2010,

Abramowicz and

Tolksdorf, eds, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 47, Springer, Berlin, 2010, pp. 35–46. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12814-1_4.

12.

T.R.

Gruber, Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing, International Journal Human–Computer Studies43(5–6) (1995), 907–928. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081.

13.

G.T.

Heineman and

W.T.

Councill (eds), Component-Based Software Engineering: Putting the Pieces Together, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2001.

14.

Hepp, Possible ontologies: How reality constrains the development of relevant ontologies, IEEE Internet Computing11(1) (2007), 90–96. doi:10.1109/MIC.2007.20.

15.

Hogan,

Harth,

Passant,

Decker and

Polleres, Weaving the pedantic web, in: Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA, April 27, 2010,

Bizer,

Heath,

Berners-Lee and

Hausenblas, eds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 628, CEUR-WS.org, 2010, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-628/ldow2010_paper04.pdf .

16.

Hogan,

Umbrich,

Harth,

Cyganiak,

Polleres and

Decker, An empirical survey of linked data conformance, Journal of Web Semantics14 (2012), 14–44. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2012.02.001.

17.

Horridge and

Bechhofer, The OWL API: A Java API for OWL ontologies, Semantic Web2(1) (2011), 11–21. doi:10.3233/SW-2011-0025.

18.

Horrocks,

P.F.

Patel-Schneider and

van Harmelen, From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language, Journal of Web Semantics1(1) (2003), 7–26. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2003.07.001.

19.

ISO 9001:2015, Quality Management Systems – Requirements, ISO/TC 176, Quality management and quality assurance, Subcommittee SC 2, Quality systems, 2015.

20.

Kiryakov,

Ognyanoff,

Velkov,

Tashev and

Peikov, LDSR: Materialized reason-able view to the web of linked data, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International RuleML-2009 Challenge, Collocated with the 3rd International Symposium on Rules, Applications and Interoperability (RuleML-2009), Las Vegas, NV, USA, November 5–7, 2009,

Y.-J.

Hu,

C.-L.

Yeh,

Laun,

Governatori,

Hall and

Paschke, eds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 549, CEUR-WS.org, 2009, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-549/paper9.pdf .

21.

Kontokostas,

Westphal,

Auer,

Hellmann,

Lehmann,

Cornelissen and

Zaveri, Test-driven evaluation of linked data quality, in: 23rd International World Wide Web Conference, WWW ’14, Seoul, Republic of Korea, April 7–11, 2014,

C.-W.

Chung,

A.Z.

Broder,

Shim and

Suel, eds, ACM, 2014, pp. 747–758. doi:10.1145/2566486.2568002.

22.

Luo, An extended calculus of constructions, PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1990.

23.

Mendel-Gleason,

Feeney and

Brennan, Ontology consistency and instance checking for real world linked data, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Linked Data Quality Co-Located with 12th Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2015), Portorož, Slovenia, June 1, 2015,

Rula,

Zaveri,

Knuth and

Kontokostas, eds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 1376, CEUR-WS.org, 2015, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1376/LDQ2015_paper_03.pdf .

24.

P.N.

Mendes,

Mühleisen and

C.B.

Sieve, Linked data quality assessment and fusion, in: Proceedings of the 2012 Joint EDBT/ICDT Workshops, Berlin, Germany, March 30, 2012,

Srivastava and

Ismail, eds, ACM, 2012, pp. 116–123. doi:10.1145/2320765.2320803.

25.

Motik,

P.F.

Patel-Schneider and

Cuenca Grau (eds), OWL 2 web ontology language: Direct semantics (second edition), W3C Recommendation 11 December 2012, https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-direct-semantics/.

26.

P.F.

Patel-Schneider, Using description logics for RDF constraint checking and closed-world recognition, in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, USA, January 25–30, 2015,

Bonet and

Koenig, eds, AAAI Press, 2015, pp. 247–253, http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI15/paper/view/9531 .

27.

P.F.

Patel-Schneider and

Fensel, Layering the semantic web: Problems and directions, in: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2002 – First International Semantic Web Conference, Proceedings, Sardinia, Italy, June 9–12, 2002,

Horrocks and

J.A.

Hendler, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2342, Springer, 2002, pp. 16–29. doi:10.1007/3-540-48005-6_4.

28.

Polleres,

Hogan,

Delbru and

Umbrich, RDFS and OWL reasoning for linked data, in: Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Intelligent Data Access – 9th International Summer School 2013, Proceedings, Mannheim, Germany, July 30–August 2, 2013,

Rudolph,

Gottlob,

Horrocks and

van Harmelen, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8067, Springer, Berlin, 2013, pp. 91–149. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39784-4_2.

29.

Poveda-Villalón,

Gómez-Pérez and

M.C.

Suárez-Figueroa, OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems10(2) (2014), 7–34. doi:10.4018/ijswis.2014040102.

30.

Sanderson,

Ciccarese and

Young (eds), Web annotation data model, W3C Proposed Recommendation 17 January 2017, https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/.

31.

Schmachtenberg,

Bizer and

Paulheim, Adoption of the linked data best practices in different topical domains, in: The Semantic Web – ISWC 2014 – 13th International Semantic Web Conference, Proceedings, Part I, Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19–23, 2014,

Mika,

Tudorache,

Bernstein,

Welty,

C.A.

Knoblock,

Vrandecic,

P.T.

Groth,

N.F.

Noy,

Janowicz and

C.A.

Goble, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8796, Springer, Berlin, 2014, pp. 245–260. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-11964-9_16.

32.

Sirin and

Tao, Towards integrity constraints in OWL, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2009), Chantilly, VA, USA, October 23–24, 2009,

Hoekstra and

P.F.

Patel-Schneider, eds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 529, CEUR-WS.org, 2009, http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-529/owled2009_submission_35.pdf .

33.

Turchin,

Brennan,

T.E.

Currie,

K.C.

Feeney,

François,

Hoyer,

J.G.

Manning,

Marciniak,

Mullins,

Palmisano,

Peregrine,

E.A.L.

Turner and

H.W.

Seshat, The Global History Databank, Cliodynamics6(1) (2015), 77–107, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9qx38718 .

34.

P.-Y.

Vandenbussche,

G.A.

Atemezing,

Poveda-Villalón and

Vatant, Linked Open Vocabularies (LOV): A gateway to reusable semantic vocabularies on the web, Semantic Web8(3) (2017), 437–452. doi:10.3233/SW-160213.

35.

Wielemaker,

Beek,

Hildebrand and

van Ossenbruggen, ClioPatria: A SWI-Prolog infrastructure for the semantic web, Semantic Web7(5) (2016), 529–541. doi:10.3233/SW-150191.

36.

Zaveri,

Rula,

Maurino,

Pietrobon,

Lehmann and

Auer, Quality assessment for linked data: A survey, Semantic Web7(1) (2016), 63–93. doi:10.3233/SW-150175.