The role of reasoning for RDF validation

Abstract

For data practitioners embracing the world of RDF and Linked Data, the openness and flexibility is a mixed blessing. For them, data validation according to predefined constraints is a much sought-after feature, particularly as this is taken for granted in the XML world. Based on our work in the DCMI RDF Application Profiles Task Group and in cooperation with the W3C Data Shapes Working Group, we published by today 81 types of constraints that are required by various stakeholders for data applications. These constraint types form the basis to investigate the role that reasoning and different semantics play in practical data validation, why reasoning is beneficial for RDF validation, and how to overcome the major shortcomings when validating RDF data by performing reasoning prior to validation. For each constraint type, we examine (1) if reasoning may improve data quality, (2) how efficient in terms of runtime validation is performed with and without reasoning, and (3) if validation results depend on underlying semantics which differs between reasoning and validation. Using these findings, we determine for the most common constraint languages which constraint types they enable to express and give directions for the further development of constraint languages.

Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

“…2 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page 3 http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles Table 1 shows the alignment of the 17 types of constraints as supported by RDFUnit with the relevant constraint types as identied by Hartmann et al [8].…”

“…Based on the work of Sirin and Tao [29], and Hartmann et al [8] who identied the logical requirements constraint languages need to full, we discuss why rule-based logic is a reasonable choice to validate RDF datasets.…”

“…These dierent languages can be compared by testing them on commonly supported constraints [9,21], as conducted by Hartmann (né Bosch) et al [8].…”

“…Such requirements were investigated by Hartmann et al [8] who identied the Closed World Assumption (CWA) and the Unique Name Assumption (UNA) as crucial for validation. Since both are not supported by many Web Logics, Hartmann et al particularly emphasize the dierence between reasoning and validation languages and favour SPARQL based approaches for validation which if needed can be combined with OWL DL or QL reasoning.…”

“…We show the feasibility of this approach by providing an implementation. This proof-of-concept is implemented in Notation3 Logic (NLogic) and tackles the subset of the constraints identied by Hartmann et al [8] which are covered in RDFUnit [21].…”