skip to main content
research-article

Completeness Management for RDF Data Sources

Published:17 July 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Semantic Web is commonly interpreted under the open-world assumption, meaning that information available (e.g., in a data source) captures only a subset of the reality. Therefore, there is no certainty about whether the available information provides a complete representation of the reality. The broad aim of this article is to contribute a formal study of how to describe the completeness of parts of the Semantic Web stored in RDF data sources. We introduce a theoretical framework allowing augmentation of RDF data sources with statements, also expressed in RDF, about their completeness. One immediate benefit of this framework is that now query answers can be complemented with information about their completeness. We study the impact of completeness statements on the complexity of query answering by considering different fragments of the SPARQL language, including the RDFS entailment regime, and the federated scenario. We implement an efficient method for reasoning about query completeness and provide an experimental evaluation in the presence of large sets of completeness statements.

References

  1. Maribel Acosta, Elena Simperl, Fabian Flöck, and Maria-Esther Vidal. 2017. Enhancing answer completeness of SPARQL queries via crowdsourcing. Journal of Web Semantics 45 (2017), 41--62.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Keith Alexander, Richard Cyganiak, Michael Hausenblas, and Jun Zhao. March 3, 2011. Describing Linked Datasets with the VoID Vocabulary. W3C Interest Group Note. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/NOTE-void-20110303/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Renzo Angles and Claudio Gutierrez. 2008. The expressive power of SPARQL. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’08), Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008. 114--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Marcelo Arenas, Claudio Gutierrez, and Jorge Pérez. 2010. On the semantics of SPARQL. In Semantic Web Information Management -- A Model-Based Perspective. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Donovan Artz and Yolanda Gil. 2007. A survey of trust in computer science and the semantic web. Journal of Web Semantics 5, 2, 58--71. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Margherita Barile. 2016. Family - Wolfram MathWorld. Retrieved May 13, 2018 from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Family.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlo Batini and Monica Scannapieco. 2016. Data and Information Quality - Dimensions, Principles and Techniques. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. David Becker, Trish Dunn King, and Bill McMullen. 2015. Big data, big data quality problem. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data’15), Santa Clara, CA, USA, October 29 - November 1, 2015. 2644--2653. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Wouter Beek, Laurens Rietveld, Hamid R. Bazoobandi, Jan Wielemaker, and Stefan Schlobach. 2014. LOD Laundromat: A uniform way of publishing other people’s dirty data. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’14), Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19-23, 2014. Part I. 213--228. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Christian Bizer, Jens Lehmann, Georgi Kobilarov, Sören Auer, Christian Becker, Richard Cyganiak, and Sebastian Hellmann. 2009. DBpedia -- A crystallization point for the web of data. Journal of Web Semantics 7, 3 (2009), 154--165. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Dan Brickley and Ramanathan V. Guha (Eds.). 2004. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved Feb 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Carlos Buil-Aranda, Marcelo Arenas, Óscar Corcho, and Axel Polleres. 2013. Federating queries in SPARQL 1.1: Syntax, semantics and evaluation. Journal of Web Semantics 18, 1, 1--17. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ashok K. Chandra and Philip M. Merlin. 1977. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In Proceedings of the 9 ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC’77). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Surajit Chaudhuri and Moshe Y. Vardi. 1993. Optimization of real conjunctive queries. In Proceedings of the 12 ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’93). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. E. F. Codd. 1979. Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 4, 4, 397--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Richard Cyganiak, David Wood, and Markus Lanthaler (Eds.). 2014. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved January 15, 2017 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-concepts-20140225/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fariz Darari, Werner Nutt, Giuseppe Pirrò, and Simon Razniewski. 2013. Completeness statements about RDF data sources and their use for query answering. In Proceedings of the 12 International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Fariz Darari, Werner Nutt, Giuseppe Pirrò, and Simon Razniewski. 2016. Toward efficient techniques for completeness reasoning. In Technical Report. Retrieved May 13, 2018 from http://completeness.inf.unibz.it/TR-2016-toward-efficient-completeness-reasoning.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Fariz Darari, Radityo Eko Prasojo, and Werner Nutt. 2014. CORNER: A completeness reasoner for SPARQL queries over RDF data sources. In Proceedings of the 11 Extended Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’14) Posters and Demos.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Fariz Darari, Radityo Eko Prasojo, and Werner Nutt. 2015. Expressing no-value information in RDF. In Proceedings of the ISWC’15 Posters 8 Demonstrations Track co-located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’15), Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Fariz Darari, Radityo Eko Prasojo, Simon Razniewski, and Werner Nutt. 2017. COOL-WD: A completeness tool for wikidata. In Proceedings of the ISWC’17 Posters 8 Demonstrations and Industry Tracks co-located with 16th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’17), Vienna, Austria, October 23-25, 2017. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1963/paper466.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Fariz Darari, Simon Razniewski, Radityo Eko Prasojo, and Werner Nutt. 2016. Enabling fine-grained RDF data completeness assessment. In Proceedings of Web Engineering - 16th International Conference (ICWE 2’16), Lugano, Switzerland, June 6-9, 2016. 170--187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. DCMI (Ed.). 14 June 2012. DCMI Metadata Terms. DCMI Recommendation. Retrieved December 5, 2017 from http://dublincore.org/documents/2012/06/14/dcmi-terms/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. AnHai Doan, Alon Halevy, and Zachary Ives. 2012. Principles of Data Integration. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Fredo Erxleben, Michael Günther, Markus Krötzsch, Julian Mendez, and Denny Vrandecic. 2014. Introducing Wikidata to the linked data web. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’14), Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19-23, 2014. Proceedings, Part I. 50--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jérôme Euzenat and Pavel Shvaiko. 2013. Ontology Matching (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg (DE). http://book.ontologymatching.org. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Valeria Fionda, Giuseppe Pirrò, and Mariano P. Consens. 2015a. Extended property paths: Writing more SPARQL queries in a succinct way. In 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 102--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Valeria Fionda, Giuseppe Pirrò, and Claudio Gutierrez. 2015b. NautiLOD: A formal language for the web of data graph. ACM Transactions on the Web 9, 1 (2015), 5:1--5:43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Christian Fürber and Martin Hepp. 2010. Using SPARQL and SPIN for data quality management on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 13 International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS’10).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Christian Fürber and Martin Hepp. 2011. Towards a vocabulary for data quality management in semantic web architectures. In Proceedings of the 2011 EDBT/ICDT Workshop on Linked Web Data Management. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Luis Antonio Galárraga, Christina Teflioudi, Katja Hose, and Fabian M. Suchanek. 2013. AMIE: Association rule mining under incomplete evidence in ontological knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 22 International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’13). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Claudio Gutiérrez, Carlos A. Hurtado, and Alejandro A. Vaisman. 2005. Temporal RDF. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 2nd European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’05), Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 29 - June 1, 2005. 93--107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Steve Harris and Andy Seaborne (Eds.). 2013. SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Andreas Harth and Sebastian Speiser. 2012. On completeness classes for query evaluation on linked data. In Proceedings of the 26 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Olaf Hartig. 2009. Provenance information in the web of data. In Proceedings of the WWW’09 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW’09), Madrid, Spain, April 20, 2009. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-538/ldow2009_paper18.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Olaf Hartig, Christian Bizer, and Johann-Christoph Freytag. 2009. Executing SPARQL queries over the web of linked data. In Proceedings of the 8<sup>th</sup> International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’09). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Olaf Hartig and Giuseppe Pirrò. 2015. A context-based semantics for SPARQL property paths over the web. In European Semantic Web Conference. Springer, 71--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Olaf Hartig and Giuseppe Pirrò. 2017. SPARQL with property paths on the web. Semantic Web 8, 6, 773--795.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Oktie Hassanzadeh and Mariano P. Consens. 2009. Linked movie data base. In Proceedings of the WWW’09 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (LDOW’09), Madrid, Spain, April 20, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Patrick J. Hayes and Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.). 2014. RDF 1.1 Semantics. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved May 27, 2016 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf11-mt-20140225/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Tom Heath and Christian Bizer. 2011. Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan 8 Claypool, Burlington, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Sven Helmer and Guido Moerkotte. 2003. A performance study of four index structures for set-valued attributes of low cardinality. VLDB Journal 12, 3 (2003), 244--261. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. David Hilbert. 1902. Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 8, 10, 437--479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Pascal Hitzler, Markus Krötzsch, Bijan Parsia, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, and Sebastian Rudolph (Eds.). 2012. OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Primer (Second Edition). W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Johannes Hoffart, Fabian M. Suchanek, Klaus Berberich, Edwin Lewis-Kelham, Gerard de Melo, and Gerhard Weikum. 2011. YAGO2: Exploring and querying world knowledge in time, space, context, and many languages. In Proceedings of the 20<sup>th</sup> International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’11). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jörg Hoffmann and Jana Koehler. 1999. A new method to index and query sets. In Proceedings of the 16<sup>th</sup> International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’99). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Aidan Hogan. 2015. Skolemising blank nodes while preserving isomorphism. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’15), Florence, Italy, May 18-22, 2015. 430--440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Aidan Hogan, Marcelo Arenas, Alejandro Mallea, and Axel Polleres. 2014. Everything you always wanted to know about blank nodes. Journal of Web Semantics 27, 42--69. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Mark Kaminski and Egor V. Kostylev. 2016. Beyond well-designed SPARQL. In 19th International Conference on Database Theory (ICDT’16), Bordeaux, France, March 15-18, 2016. 5:1--5:18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Graham Klyne and Jeremy J. Carroll (Eds.). 2004. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Holger Knublauch and Dimitris Kontokostas (Eds.). 2017. Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL). W3C Candidate Recommendation. Retrieved May 20, 2017 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-shacl-20170411/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Timothy Lebo, Satya Sahoo, and Deborah McGuinness (Eds.). 2012. PROV-O: The PROV Ontology. W3C Candidate Recommendation. Retrieved May 27, 2016 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-prov-o-20121211/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Andrés Letelier, Jorge Pérez, Reinhard Pichler, and Sebastian Skritek. 2012. Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. In Proceedings of the 31<sup>th</sup> Symposium on Principles of Database Systems (PODS’12). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Alon Y. Levy. 1996. Obtaining complete answers from incomplete databases. In Proceedings of the 22<sup>nd</sup> International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB’96). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Antoni Ligeza. 2006. Logical Foundations for Rule-Based Systems, 2nd Ed. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Vol. 11. Springer. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Nuno Lopes, Axel Polleres, Umberto Straccia, and Antoine Zimmermann. 2010. AnQL: SPARQLing up annotated RDFS. In The Semantic Web - 9th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’10), Shanghai, China, November 7-11, 2010, Revised Selected Papers, Part I. 518--533. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Carsten Lutz, Inanç Seylan, and Frank Wolter. 2013. Ontology-based data access with closed predicates is inherently intractable (sometimes). In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13) , Beijing, China, August 3-9, 2013. 1024--1030. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI13/paper/view/6870. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Carsten Lutz, Inanç Seylan, and Frank Wolter. 2015. Ontology-mediated queries with closed predicates. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’15), Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25-31, 2015. 3120--3126. http://ijcai.org/Abstract/15/440. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Fadi Maali and John Erickson. 2014. Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT). W3C Recommendation. Retrieved December 5, 2017 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-vocab-dcat-20140116/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Frank Manola and Eric Miller (Eds.). 2004. RDF Primer. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved July 31, 2016 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Pablo N. Mendes, Hannes Mühleisen, and Christian Bizer. 2012. Sieve: Linked data quality assessment and fusion. In Proceedings of the 2012 EDBT/ICDT Workshop on Linked Web Data Management. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Paramita Mirza, Simon Razniewski, Fariz Darari, and Gerhard Weikum. 2017. Cardinal virtues: Extracting relation cardinalities from text. In ACL’17 Short Papers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Paramita Mirza, Simon Razniewski, and Werner Nutt. 2016. Expanding Wikidata’s parenthood information by 178%, or how to mine relation cardinalities. In ISWC Posters 8 Demos.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Amihai Motro. 1989. Integrity &equals; Validity + completeness. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 14, 4 (1989), 480--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Sergio Muñoz, Jorge Pérez, and Claudio Gutierrez. 2009. Simple and efficient minimal RDFS. Journal of Web Semantics 7, 3 (2009), 220--234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Nhung Ngo, Magdalena Ortiz, and Mantas Simkus. 2016. Closed predicates in description logics: Results on combined complexity. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference, KR 2016, Cape Town, South Africa, April 25-29, 2016. 237--246. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/KR/KR16/paper/view/12906. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Natasha Noy and Alan Rector (Eds.). 2006. Defining N-ary Relations on the Semantic Web. W3C Working Group Note. Retrieved January 10, 2017 from https://www.w3.org/TR/2006/NOTE-swbp-n-aryRelations-20060412/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Peter F. Patel-Schneider. 2015. Using description logics for RDF constraint checking and closed-world recognition. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15). AAAI Press, 247--253. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id&equals;2887007.2887042. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Jorge Pérez, Marcelo Arenas, and Claudio Gutierrez. 2009. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 34, 3 (2009), 16:1--16:45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. François Picalausa and Stijn Vansummeren. 2011. What are real SPARQL queries like? In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Web Information Management (SWIM’11).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  71. Radityo Eko Prasojo, Fariz Darari, Simon Razniewski, and Werner Nutt. 2016. Managing and consuming completeness information for Wikidata using COOL-WD. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Consuming Linked Data co-located with 15th International Semantic Web Conference (COLD@ISWC’15), Kobe, Japan, October 18, 2016. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1666/paper-02.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Eric Prud’hommeaux, Iovka Boneva, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, and Gregg Kellogg (Eds.). 2017. Shape Expressions Language 2.0. W3C Community Group Draft Report. Retrieved December 12, 2017 from http://shex.io/shex-semantics-20170713.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Eric Prud’hommeaux and Carlos Buil-Aranda (Eds.). SPARQL 1.1 Federated Query. W3C Recommendation. Retrieved February 1, 2015 from http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-federated-query-20130321/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Andrea Pugliese, Octavian Udrea, and V. S. Subrahmanian. 2008. Scaling RDF with time. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW’08), Beijing, China, April 21-25, 2008. 605--614. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  75. Simon Razniewski and Werner Nutt. 2011. Completeness of queries over incomplete databases. In Proceedings of the 37 International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB’11).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Intizar Ali, Aidan Hogan, Qaiser Mehmood, and Axel-Cyrille Ngonga Ngomo. 2015. LSQ: The linked SPARQL queries dataset. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’15), Bethlehem, PA, USA, October 11-15, 2015, Part II. 261--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. Iztok Savnik. 2013. Index data structure for fast subset and superset queries. In International Cross Domain Conference and Workshop (CD-ARES’13).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. Max Schmachtenberg, Christian Bizer, and Heiko Paulheim. 2014. Adoption of the linked data best practices in different topical domains. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web - 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC’14), Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19-23, 2014. Part I. 245--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Michael Schmidt, Michael Meier, and Georg Lausen. 2010. Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In Proceedings of Database Theory - 13th International Conference (ICDT’10), Lausanne, Switzerland, March 23-25, 2010, 4--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  80. Inanç Seylan, Enrico Franconi, and Jos de Bruijn. 2009. Effective query rewriting with ontologies over DBoxes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’09), Pasadena, California, USA, July 11-17, 2009. 923--925. http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/09/Papers/157.pdf. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. Giorgos Stoilos, Bernardo Cuenca Grau, and Ian Horrocks. 2010. How incomplete is your semantic web reasoner? In Proceedings of the 24<sup>th</sup> AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’10). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Jonas Tappolet and Abraham Bernstein. 2009. Applied temporal RDF: Efficient temporal querying of RDF data with SPARQL. In Proceedings of The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, 6th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC’09), Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 31-June 4, 2009. 308--322. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  83. Richard Y. Wang and Diane M. Strong. 1996. Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems 12, 4 (1996), 5--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  84. Xin Wang, Howard J. Hamilton, and Yashu Bither. 2005. An Ontology-based Approach to Data Cleaning. Technical Report. Department of Computer Science, University of Regina.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. Amrapali Zaveri, Anisa Rula, Andrea Maurino, Ricardo Pietrobon, Jens Lehmann, and Sören Auer. 2016. Quality assessment for linked data: A survey. Semantic Web 7, 1, 63--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Completeness Management for RDF Data Sources

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on the Web
          ACM Transactions on the Web  Volume 12, Issue 3
          August 2018
          207 pages
          ISSN:1559-1131
          EISSN:1559-114X
          DOI:10.1145/3240924
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 17 July 2018
          • Revised: 1 February 2018
          • Accepted: 1 February 2018
          • Received: 1 August 2016
          Published in tweb Volume 12, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader