DOCSLIB.ORG

An Alternative CIM Modeling Approach Using JSON-LD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

An Alternative CIM Modeling Approach using JSON-LD Authors: Milan Gavrić, Kosa Nenadić Presented by: Milan Gavrić, Ph.D. [email protected] Head of Systems Integration Department Content Typical CIM Modeling Approach RDF Serialization Formats JSON-LD Proposed CIM Modeling Approach ENTSO-E IOP Use Case Schneider Electric DMS NS 2 Integrations Need Standards „Standards are great. Everyone should have one.“ – Bob Metcalfe Research project, in cooperation with the Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia Schneider Electric DMS NS 3 Integrating Utility Systems Schneider Electric DMS NS 4 Two Main Aspects of CIM Applicability Network Model Exchange ● RDF based modeling approach ● Standard-based, well defined, IOP tests performed on yearly basis ● Different serialization approaches, mostly CIMXML ● Introducing of CIM specifics in RDFS ● Limited validation capabilities ● Siloed approach – model parts ● Limited standardized reasoning capabilities ● Focus on Full Models Message Exchange ● SOAP based messages ● Standard-based, well defined, but issues with IOP tests ● XML payload with defined XSDs Schneider Electric DMS NS 5 Typical CIM Modeling Approach CIM UML RDFS - schema specification language expressed using RDF used to govern information exchanged within a specific business exchange context. extends CIMXML serialization format (subset of RDF) Extensions UML ● Both machine and human readable, primarily intended for programmatic access restricts ● Can be accessed by any tool that supports the DOM ● Self-describing Profiles ● Takes advantage of current W3C recommendations. RDFS CIM Datasets (Instance Files) that are Model Part * uses content normally contain ‘dangling references’ . RDFS maintains CIM and Extension namespaces CIMXML * Using the Common Information Model for Network Analysis Data Management: A CIM Primer Series Guide. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2014. 3002002587. Schneider Electric DMS NS 6 Typical CIM Modeling Approach Extensions 2 2 1 1 CIM Profile Profile CIM CIM Profile Profile CIM CIM defined with defined with Profile 1 Profile 2 CIM RDFS CIM RDFS #URI #URI references using references using Model.profile Model.profile Model 1 references using Model 2 CIMXML Model.DependentOn CIMXML #UUID #UUID Schneider Electric DMS NS 7 ENTSO-E CIM Modeling Approach ENTSO-E Extensions Assembled Power System Model = Combined instance files from different models EQ Profile EQ ● MAS files EQ, SSH, TP, Profile SSH DY, GL grouped in .zip CIM ● Boundary MAS files defined with defined with OCL used for handling defined constraints EQ Short Circuit SSH CIM RDFS CIM RDFS #URI #URI references using references using Model.profile #URI Model.profile #URI EQ Model 1 references using SSH Model 1 CIMXML Model.DependentOn #URI CIMXML #UUID #UUID MAS files zipped Schneider Electric DMS NS 8 ENTSO-E CIM Modeling Approach Profiles enable definitions of ● different cardinalities ● different model extensions Model Parts assume referenced object existence Enriching the knowledge about the referenced instances IdentifiedObject DL profile DL TP profile TP GL profile GL SV profile DY profile DY EQ profile EQ SSH profile SSH .name R O O R R × O .description O O × × × × O .energyIdentCodeEic O O × × × × × .shortName O O × × × × × Schneider Electric DMS NS 9 Dangling Reference Types There are two types of dangling references: ● An object of one class may reference an object of another class, as allowed by associations defined in the CIM UML. ● An object may exist in one Model Part, and another Model Part may provide additional information about the object. Schneider Electric DMS NS 10 Independent CIM Profiles Modeling Each CIM Profile has its own set of classes and properties, e.g. each CIM Profile has defined a separate IdentifiedObject class in the EA Schneider Electric DMS NS 11 Mapping CIM RDFS to OWL CIM RDF Schema CIM OWL 2 Ontology CIM RDF Schema owl:Ontology cims:profile; rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:Class with Primitive stereotype XSD type rdfs:Class - CIMDatatype stereotype XSD type, owl:Class rdfs:Class enumeration stereotype owl:Class; Enumeration Element owl:NamedIndividual rdfs:Class owl:Class rdfs:Property owl:DatatypeProperty, owl:ObjectProperty cims:multiplicity owl:qualifiedCardinality, owl:maxQualifiedCardinality, owl:minQualifiedCardinality cims:inverseRoleName owl:inverseOf cims:datatype rdfs:range of owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty cims:isAggregate meta:isAggregate (owl:AnnotationProperty); cims:stereotype meta:stereotype (owl:AnnotationProperty); cims:ClassCategory owl:Class (Meta ontology) cims:belongsToCategory meta:belongsToCategory (owl:AnnotationProperty); cims:isFixed* meta:isFixed (owl:AnnotationProperty); cims:associationUsed* meta:associationUsed (owl:AnnotationProperty); Schneider Electric DMS NS 12 RDF1.1 Serialization Formats Grouping RDF statements in multiple graphs Associating named graph with an IRI First introduced in SPARQL Multiple Graphs Support TriG N-Quads JSON-LD extends extends Turtle N-Triples Schneider Electric DMS NS 13 JavaScript Object Notation for Linked Data (JSON-LD) a lightweight Linked Data format that extends JSON: ● easy for humans to read and write ● provides a way to help JSON data interoperate at Web-scale JSON-LD 1.0 is a W3C Recommendation published at 16th Jan 2014 Current version JSON-LD 1.1 Defines algorithms for transformation of JSON-LD documents: ● expansion, ● compaction, ● flattening, ● and RDF serialization/deserialization. Schneider Electric DMS NS 14 Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) SHACL is a W3C Recommendation published at 20th July 2017 Used for RDF graph validation SHACL is divided into two parts: ● SHACL Core ● SHACL-SPARQL Schneider Electric DMS NS 15 Proposed Modeling Approach Model Description CIM Meta Ontology CIM UML Ontology OWL 2 OWL 2 OWL 2 extends uses Extensions Extensions UML OWL 2 ontology mapping uses restricts semantic ontology mapping mapping uses Profiles Profiles SHACL shape RDFS OWL 2 graphs uses uses uses validated/ reshaped CIM CIMXML JSON-LD Schneider Electric DMS NS 16 Proposed Modeling Approach A comprehensive common CIM ontology is created, including Model, Meta and Extension ontologies using RDFS and OWL2 concepts. Standard XML Schema datatypes are used. Each CIM Profile ontology is mapped to the common CIM ontology, and potentially to the Extension ontology using owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty. Each CIM Profile ontology has its own namespace Each ontology/namespace is dereferenceable. CIM data documents and contained resources are dereferenceable. JSON-LD syntax is utilized. The goal is formally and semantically interlinked data. Schneider Electric DMS NS 17 Proposed Approach on CGMES Model CIM CIM UML Meta Ontology Description OWL2 Ontology extends uses CGMES CGMES UML Extensions ontology OWL2 mapping uses restricts ontology mapping conversion CGMES Profiles and CGMES Profiles RDFS semantic OWL 2 uses mapping uses CGMES CGMES SHACL shape uses OCL uses graphs validated by validates/ reshapes CGMES CGMES Mini Grid Mini Grid CIMXML JSON-LD Schneider Electric DMS NS 18 Proposed Modeling Approach ENTSO-E DL and EQ Profiles CommonCIM ENTSOE extensions co:IdentifiedObject co:mRID co:description co:name entsoe:shortName isEquivalent entsoe:energyIdentCodeEic isEquivalent isEquivalent isEquivalent Meta Diagram Layout Profile EquipmentProfile me:ClassCategory isEquivalent 0..1 eq:mRID 0..1 dl:mRID dl:IdentifiedObject eq:IdentifiedObject 0..1 eq:description 1..1 dl:name 1..1 eq:name ModelDescription 0..* dl:DiagramObjects 0..1 eq:shortName md:Model 0..1 eq:energyIdentCodeEic Schneider Electric DMS NS 19 Proposed Modeling Approach Example Profiles in JSON-LD Test Configurations from the Conformity Assessment Scheme v2.0 CommonCIM.owl.jsonld ... { "@id": "co:IdentifiedObject", "@type": "owl:Class", "me:belongsToCategory": { Meta "@id": "me:Package_Core" ... }, { "me:stereotype": "abstract", "@id": "http://www.utility.com/meta#Package_LoadModel", "rdfs:comment": "This is a root class to provide common identification ...", "@type": [ "rdfs:isDefinedBy": { "@id": "http://www.utility.com/CommonCIM" }, "http://www.utility.com/meta#ClassCategory", "rdfs:label": { "@language": "en", "@value": "IdentifiedObject" }, "owl:NamedIndividual" ], "rdfs:subClassOf": [ "rdfs:comment": {"@language": "en","@value": "Package LoadModel" }, { "@id": "_:N20498595194f4e4bb39689de7423c983" }, "rdfs:label": { "@language": "en", "@value": "LoadModel" } { "@id": "_:Na44c69c0f46a443fb000a1b9ab1fd0dc" }, }, { "@id": "_:Ncca9e4426b4c4c2aa0fe100ff3592e35" }, ... { "@id": "_:Nd47c8d95b16f4128811ab705328796b0" } ] }, ... DiagramLayoutProfile.owl.jsonld EquipmentProfileCoreShortCircuitOperation.owl.jsonld ... ... { { "@id": "dl:IdentifiedObject", "@id": "eq:IdentifiedObject", "@type": "owl:Class", "@type": "owl:Class", "me:belongsToCategory": { "@id": "me:Package_Core" }, "me:belongsToCategory": { "@id": "me:Package_Core" }, "rdfs:comment": "This is a root class to provide common identification ...", "rdfs:comment": "This is a root class to provide common ...", "rdfs:isDefinedBy": { "@id": "http://www.utility.com/DiagramLayoutProfile" }, "rdfs:isDefinedBy": { "@id": "http://www.utility.com/EquipmentProfileCoreShortCircuitOperation" }, "rdfs:label": { "@language": "en", "@value": "IdentifiedObject" }, "rdfs:label": { "@language": "en", "@value": "IdentifiedObject" }, "rdfs:subClassOf": [ "rdfs:subClassOf": [ { "@id": "_:Ncef32b12d0b6455280b9bc99018f79ae" }, //"dl:IdentifiedObject.DiagramObjects" { "@id": "_:N5b146c98556c40849a2b7981cef19e52"
Recommended publications
  • V a Lida T in G R D F Da

    V a Lida T in G R D F Da

    Series ISSN: 2160-4711 LABRA GAYO • ET AL GAYO LABRA Series Editors: Ying Ding, Indiana University Paul Groth, Elsevier Labs Validating RDF Data Jose Emilio Labra Gayo, University of Oviedo Eric Prud’hommeaux, W3C/MIT and Micelio Iovka Boneva, University of Lille Dimitris Kontokostas, University of Leipzig VALIDATING RDF DATA This book describes two technologies for RDF validation: Shape Expressions (ShEx) and Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), the rationales for their designs, a comparison of the two, and some example applications. RDF and Linked Data have broad applicability across many fields, from aircraft manufacturing to zoology. Requirements for detecting bad data differ across communities, fields, and tasks, but nearly all involve some form of data validation. This book introduces data validation and describes its practical use in day-to-day data exchange. The Semantic Web offers a bold, new take on how to organize, distribute, index, and share data. Using Web addresses (URIs) as identifiers for data elements enables the construction of distributed databases on a global scale. Like the Web, the Semantic Web is heralded as an information revolution, and also like the Web, it is encumbered by data quality issues. The quality of Semantic Web data is compromised by the lack of resources for data curation, for maintenance, and for developing globally applicable data models. At the enterprise scale, these problems have conventional solutions. Master data management provides an enterprise-wide vocabulary, while constraint languages capture and enforce data structures. Filling a need long recognized by Semantic Web users, shapes languages provide models and vocabularies for expressing such structural constraints.
  • Semantics Developer's Guide

    Semantics Developer's Guide

    MarkLogic Server Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 2 MarkLogic 10 May, 2019 Last Revised: 10.0-8, October, 2021 Copyright © 2021 MarkLogic Corporation. All rights reserved. MarkLogic Server MarkLogic 10—May, 2019 Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide—Page 2 MarkLogic Server Table of Contents Table of Contents Semantic Graph Developer’s Guide 1.0 Introduction to Semantic Graphs in MarkLogic ..........................................11 1.1 Terminology ..........................................................................................................12 1.2 Linked Open Data .................................................................................................13 1.3 RDF Implementation in MarkLogic .....................................................................14 1.3.1 Using RDF in MarkLogic .........................................................................15 1.3.1.1 Storing RDF Triples in MarkLogic ...........................................17 1.3.1.2 Querying Triples .......................................................................18 1.3.2 RDF Data Model .......................................................................................20 1.3.3 Blank Node Identifiers ..............................................................................21 1.3.4 RDF Datatypes ..........................................................................................21 1.3.5 IRIs and Prefixes .......................................................................................22 1.3.5.1 IRIs ............................................................................................22
  • Deciding SHACL Shape Containment Through Description Logics Reasoning

    Deciding SHACL Shape Containment Through Description Logics Reasoning

    Deciding SHACL Shape Containment through Description Logics Reasoning Martin Leinberger1, Philipp Seifer2, Tjitze Rienstra1, Ralf Lämmel2, and Steffen Staab3;4 1 Inst. for Web Science and Technologies, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany 2 The Software Languages Team, University of Koblenz-Landau, Germany 3 Institute for Parallel and Distributed Systems, University of Stuttgart, Germany 4 Web and Internet Science Research Group, University of Southampton, England Abstract. The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) allows for for- malizing constraints over RDF data graphs. A shape groups a set of constraints that may be fulfilled by nodes in the RDF graph. We investi- gate 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. Todecide 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. 1 Introduction RDF has been designed as a flexible, semi-structured data format. To ensure data quality and to allow for restricting its large flexibility in specific domains, the W3C has standardized the Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)5. A set of SHACL shapes are represented in a shape graph. A shape graph represents constraints that only a subset of all possible RDF data graphs conform to. A SHACL processor may validate whether a given RDF data graph conforms to a given SHACL shape graph. A shape graph and a data graph that act as a running example are pre- sented in Fig.
  • Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing

    Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing

    RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to support RDF W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904 Diff from previous version: rdfa-syntax-diff.html Editors: Ben Adida, Creative Commons [email protected] Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. [email protected] Steven Pemberton, CWI Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version, ZIP archive, and Gzip’d TAR archive. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML. These documents contain significant amounts of structured data, which is largely unavailable to tools and applications. When publishers can express this data more completely, and when tools can read it, a new world of user functionality becomes available, letting users transfer structured data between applications and web sites, and allowing browsing applications to improve the user experience: an event on a web page can be directly imported - 1 - How to Read this Document RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing into a user’s desktop calendar; a license on a document can be detected so that users can be informed of their rights automatically; a photo’s creator, camera setting information, resolution, location and topic can be published as easily as the original photo itself, enabling structured search and sharing.
  • Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

    Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

    Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27]. One of the reasons for this is that the datasets' quality and consistency varies signicantly, ranging from expensively curated to relatively low quality data [33], and thus need to be validated carefully before use.
  • Bibliography of Erik Wilde

    Bibliography of Erik Wilde

    dretbiblio dretbiblio Erik Wilde's Bibliography References [1] AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, San Francisco, California, December 1968. [2] Seventeenth IEEE Conference on Computer Communication Networks, Washington, D.C., 1978. [3] ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, March 1982. ACM Press. [4] First Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 1986. [5] 1987 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, November 1987. ACM Press. [6] 18th IEEE International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing, Tokyo, Japan, 1988. IEEE Computer Society Press. [7] Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Portland, Oregon, 1988. ACM Press. [8] Conference on Office Information Systems, Palo Alto, California, March 1988. [9] 1989 ACM Conference on Hypertext, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, November 1989. ACM Press. [10] UNIX | The Legend Evolves. Summer 1990 UKUUG Conference, Buntingford, UK, 1990. UKUUG. [11] Fourth ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Hilton Head, South Carolina, November 1991. [12] GLOBECOM'91 Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [13] IEEE INFOCOM '91 Conference on Computer Communications, Bal Harbour, Florida, 1991. IEEE Computer Society Press. [14] IEEE International Conference on Communications, Denver, Colorado, June 1991. [15] International Workshop on CSCW, Berlin, Germany, April 1991. [16] Third ACM Conference on Hypertext, San Antonio, Texas, December 1991. ACM Press. [17] 11th Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems, Houston, Texas, 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. [18] 3rd Joint European Networking Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, May 1992. [19] Fourth ACM Conference on Hypertext, Milano, Italy, November 1992. ACM Press. [20] GLOBECOM'92 Conference, Orlando, Florida, December 1992. IEEE Computer Society Press. http://github.com/dret/biblio (August 29, 2018) 1 dretbiblio [21] IEEE INFOCOM '92 Conference on Computer Communications, Florence, Italy, 1992.
  • Rdfs:Frbr– Towards an Implementation Model for Library Catalogs Using Semantic Web Technology

    Rdfs:Frbr– Towards an Implementation Model for Library Catalogs Using Semantic Web Technology

    rdfs:frbr– Towards an Implementation Model for Library Catalogs Using Semantic Web Technology Stefan Gradmann SUMMARY. The paper sets out from a few basic observations (biblio- graphic information is still mostly part of the ‘hidden Web,’ library au- tomation methods still have a low WWW-transparency, and take-up of FRBR has been rather slow) and continues taking a closer look at Se- mantic Web technology components. This results in a proposal for im- plementing FRBR as RDF-Schema and of RDF-based library catalogues built on such an approach. The contribution concludes with a discussion of selected strategic benefits resulting from such an approach. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Web- site: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] Stefan Gradmann, PhD, is Head, Hamburg University “Virtual Campus Library” Unit, which is part of the computing center and has a mission of providing information management services to the university as a whole, including e-publication services and open access to electronic scientific information resources. Address correspondence to: Stefan Gradmann, Virtuelle Campusbibliothek Regionales Rechenzentrum der Universität Hamburg, Schlüterstrasse 70, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany (E-mail: [email protected]). [Haworth co-indexing entry note]: “rdfs:frbr–Towards an Implementation Model for Library Cata- logs Using Semantic Web Technology.” Gradmann, Stefan. Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly (The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 39, No. 3/4, 2005, pp. 63-75; and: Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR): Hype or Cure-All? (ed: Patrick Le Boeuf) The Haworth Information Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc., 2005, pp.
  • SHACL Satisfiability and Containment

    SHACL Satisfiability and Containment

    SHACL Satisfiability and Containment Paolo Pareti1 , George Konstantinidis1 , Fabio Mogavero2 , and Timothy J. Norman1 1 University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom {pp1v17,g.konstantinidis,t.j.norman}@soton.ac.uk 2 Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Napoli, Italy [email protected] Abstract. The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) is a recent W3C recom- mendation language for validating RDF data. Specifically, SHACL documents are collections of constraints that enforce particular shapes on an RDF graph. Previous work on the topic has provided theoretical and practical results for the validation problem, but did not consider the standard decision problems of satisfiability and containment, which are crucial for verifying the feasibility of the constraints and important for design and optimization purposes. In this paper, we undertake a thorough study of different features of non-recursive SHACL by providing a translation to a new first-order language, called SCL, that precisely captures the semantics of SHACL w.r.t. satisfiability and containment. We study the interaction of SHACL features in this logic and provide the detailed map of decidability and complexity results of the aforementioned decision problems for different SHACL sublanguages. Notably, we prove that both problems are undecidable for the full language, but we present decidable combinations of interesting features. 1 Introduction The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) has been recently introduced as a W3C recommendation language for the validation of RDF graphs, and it has already been adopted by mainstream tools and triplestores. A SHACL document is a collection of shapes which define particular constraints and specify which nodes in a graph should be validated against these constraints.
  • Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

    Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Using Rule-Based Reasoning for RDF Validation Dörthe Arndt, Ben De Meester, Anastasia Dimou, Ruben Verborgh, and Erik Mannens Ghent University - imec - IDLab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium [email protected] Abstract. The success of the Semantic Web highly depends on its in- gredients. If we want to fully realize the vision of a machine-readable Web, it is crucial that Linked Data are actually useful for machines con- suming them. On this background it is not surprising that (Linked) Data validation is an ongoing research topic in the community. However, most approaches so far either do not consider reasoning, and thereby miss the chance of detecting implicit constraint violations, or they base them- selves on a combination of dierent formalisms, eg Description Logics combined with SPARQL. In this paper, we propose using Rule-Based Web Logics for RDF validation focusing on the concepts needed to sup- port the most common validation constraints, such as Scoped Negation As Failure (SNAF), and the predicates dened in the Rule Interchange Format (RIF). We prove the feasibility of the approach by providing an implementation in Notation3 Logic. As such, we show that rule logic can cover both validation and reasoning if it is expressive enough. Keywords: N3, RDF Validation, Rule-Based Reasoning 1 Introduction The amount of publicly available Linked Open Data (LOD) sets is constantly growing1, however, the diversity of the data employed in applications is mostly very limited: only a handful of RDF data is used frequently [27].
  • 15 Years of Semantic Web: an Incomplete Survey

    15 Years of Semantic Web: an Incomplete Survey

    Ku¨nstl Intell (2016) 30:117–130 DOI 10.1007/s13218-016-0424-1 TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION 15 Years of Semantic Web: An Incomplete Survey 1 2 Birte Glimm • Heiner Stuckenschmidt Received: 7 November 2015 / Accepted: 5 January 2016 / Published online: 23 January 2016 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016 Abstract It has been 15 years since the first publications today’s Web: Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for proposed the use of ontologies as a basis for defining assigning unique identifiers to resources, the HyperText information semantics on the Web starting what today is Markup Language (HTML) for specifying the formatting known as the Semantic Web Research Community. This of Web pages, and the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) work undoubtedly had a significant influence on AI as a that allows for the retrieval of linked resources from across field and in particular the knowledge representation and the Web. Typically, the markup of standard Web pages Reasoning Community that quickly identified new chal- describes only the formatting and, hence, Web pages and lenges and opportunities in using Description Logics in a the navigation between them using hyperlinks is targeted practical setting. In this survey article, we will try to give towards human users (cf. Fig. 1). an overview of the developments the field has gone through In 2001, Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora in these 15 years. We will look at three different aspects: Lassila describe their vision for a Semantic Web [5]: the evolution of Semantic Web Language Standards, the The Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an evolution of central topics in the Semantic Web Commu- extension of the current one, in which information is nity and the evolution of the research methodology.
  • Finding Non-Compliances with Declarative Process Constraints Through Semantic Technologies

    Finding Non-Compliances with Declarative Process Constraints Through Semantic Technologies

    Finding Non-compliances with Declarative Process Constraints through Semantic Technologies Claudio Di Ciccio2, Fajar J. Ekaputra1, Alessio Cecconi2, Andreas Ekelhart1, Elmar Kiesling1 1 TU Wien, Favoritenstrasse 9-11, 1040 Vienna, Austria, [email protected] 2 WU Vienna, Welthandelsplatz 1, 1020 Vienna, Austria fclaudio.di.ciccio,[email protected] Abstract. Business process compliance checking enables organisations to assess whether their processes fulfil a given set of constraints, such as regulations, laws, or guidelines. Whilst many process analysts still rely on ad-hoc, often handcrafted per- case checks, a variety of constraint languages and approaches have been developed in recent years to provide automated compliance checking. A salient example is DE- CLARE, a well-established declarative process specification language based on tem- poral logics. DECLARE specifies the behaviour of processes through temporal rules that constrain the execution of tasks. So far, however, automated compliance check- ing approaches typically report compliance only at the aggregate level, using binary evaluations of constraints on execution traces. Consequently, their results lack gran- ular information on violations and their context, which hampers auditability of pro- cess data for analytic and forensic purposes. To address this challenge, we propose a novel approach that leverages semantic technologies for compliance checking. Our approach proceeds in two stages. First, we translate DECLARE templates into state- ments in SHACL, a graph-based constraint language. Then, we evaluate the resulting constraints on the graph-based, semantic representation of process execution logs. We demonstrate the feasibility of our approach by testing its implementation on real- world event logs. Finally, we discuss its implications and future research directions.
  • Powl – a Web Based Platform for Collaborative Semantic Web Development

    Powl – a Web Based Platform for Collaborative Semantic Web Development

    Powl – A Web Based Platform for Collaborative Semantic Web Development Sören Auer University of Leipzig [email protected] Abstract: We outline Powl, an opensource, web-based semantic web develop- ment platform for PHP. It may be used as a foundational framework for seman- tic web applications. Powl allows parsing, storing, querying, manipulating, ver- sioning, serving and serializing RDF-S and OWL knowledge bases in a collaborative web enabled environment. Detailed project information, a demon- stration and complete source code of Powl is available at http://powl.sf.net. 1 Introduction In this demonstration paper we give an overview on Powl, a web based ontology management tool. Its capabilities include parsing, storing, querying, manipulating, versioning, serving and serializing RDF and OWL knowledge bases for different target audiences. For the semantic web researcher it may provide a test bed for rapid implementations of new approaches. For the web application developer it offers an object-oriented application programming interface for semantic web software devel- opment. For knowledge engineers there is a sophisticated web interface for collabora- tive development of ontologies in a web enabled environment. Powl is implemented in the web scripting language PHP1. An implementation in a script language has serveral advantages. In addition to being platform independent, Powl is thus simple to modify and extend by researchers and semantic web develop- ers. The source code is compact and easy to grasp. This results in a short development time - Powl was developed in approximately 9 man-months so far. An advantage of PHP in particular is that it is by far the most widely used pro- gramming language for web applications.