Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/1963405.1963497acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebconfConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Rewriting queries on SPARQL views

Published: 28 March 2011 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    The problem of answering SPARQL queries over virtual SPARQL views is commonly encountered in a number of settings, including while enforcing security policies to access RDF data, or when integrating RDF data from disparate sources. We approach this problem by rewriting SPARQL queries over the views to equivalent queries over the underlying RDF data, thus avoiding the costs entailed by view materialization and maintenance. We show that SPARQL query rewriting combines the most challenging aspects of rewriting for the relational and XML cases: like the relational case, SPARQL query rewriting requires synthesizing multiple views; like the XML case, the size of the rewritten query is exponential to the size of the query and the views. In this paper, we present the first native query rewriting algorithm for SPARQL. For an input SPARQL query over a set of virtual SPARQL views, the rewritten query resembles a union of conjunctive queries and can be of exponential size. We propose optimizations over the basic rewriting algorithm to (i) minimize each conjunctive query in the union; (ii) eliminate conjunctive queries with empty results from evaluation; and (iii) efficiently prune out big portions of the search space of empty rewritings. The experiments, performed on two RDF stores, show that our algorithms are scalable and independent of the underlying RDF stores. Furthermore, our optimizations have order of magnitude improvements over the basic rewriting algorithm in both the rewriting size and evaluation time.

    References

    [1]
    4store - scalable RDF storage. http://4store.org/http://4store.org/.
    [2]
    Jena semantic web framework. http://jena.sourceforge.nethttp://jena.sourceforge.net.
    [3]
    Virtuoso universal server. http://virtuoso.openlinksw.comhttp://virtuoso.openlinksw.com.
    [4]
    D. J. Abadi, A. Marcus, S. R. Madden, and K. Hollenbach. Scalable semantic web data management using vertical partitioning. In VLDB, 2007.
    [5]
    F. Abel and et al. Enabling advanced and context dependent access control in RDF stores. In ISWC, 2007.
    [6]
    S. Abiteboul, R. Hull, and V. Vianu. Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
    [7]
    N. Alon, Y. Matias, and M. Szegedy. The space complexity of approximating the frequency moments. In STOC, 1996.
    [8]
    R. Angles and C. Gutierrez. The expressive power of SPARQL. In ISWC, pages 114--129, 2008.
    [9]
    K. Beyer, P. J. Haas, B. Reinwald, Y. Sismanis, and R. Gemulla. On synopses for distinct-value estimation under multiset operations. In SIGMOD, 2007.
    [10]
    B. Cautis, A. Deutsch, and N. Onose. Xpath rewriting using multiple views: Achieving completeness and efficiency. In WebDB, 2008.
    [11]
    B. Cautis, A. Deutsch, and N. Onose. Querying data sources that export infinite sets of views. In ICDT, 2009.
    [12]
    G. Correndo, M. Salvadores, I. Millard, H. Glaser, and N. Shadbolt. SPARQL query rewriting for implementing data integration over linked data. In EDBT, 2010.
    [13]
    W. Fan, C.-Y. Chan, and M. Garofalakis. Secure XML querying with security views. In SIGMOD, 2004.
    [14]
    W. Fan, F. Geerts, X. Jia, and A. Kementsietsidis. Rewriting regular XPath queries on XML views. In ICDE, pages 666--675, 2007.
    [15]
    Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin. LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems. Journal of Web Semantics, 2005.
    [16]
    A. Y. Halevy. Answering queries using views: A survey. VLDB J., 10(4):270--294, 2001.
    [17]
    B. Kalyanasundaram and G. Schintger. The probabilistic communication complexity of set intersection. SIAM J. Discret. Math., 5(4):545--557, 1992.
    [18]
    W. Le, S. Duan, A. Kementsietsidis, F. Li, and M. Wang. Query rewriting over SPARQL views. Technical report. http://ww2.cs.fsu.edu/~le/rdfview.pdf.
    [19]
    M. Lenzerini. Data integration: A theoretical perspective. In PODS, pages 233--246, 2002.
    [20]
    G. Manjunath and et al. Semantic views for controlled access to the semantic web. In Tech. Rep. HPL-08-15, 2008.
    [21]
    Y. Papakonstantinou and V. Vassalos. Query rewriting for semistructured data. In SIGMOD, pages 455--466, 1999.
    [22]
    J. Pérez, M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 34(3):1--45, 2009.
    [23]
    R. Pottinger and A. Halevy. MiniCon: A scalable algorithm for answering queries using views. VLDB J., 2001.
    [24]
    S. Rizvi, A. Mendelzon, S. Sudarshan, and P. Roy. Extending query rewriting techniques for fine-grained access control. In SIGMOD, pages 551--562, 2004.
    [25]
    J. D. Ullman. Information integration using logical views. In ICDT, pages 19--40, 1997.
    [26]
    Q. Wang and et al. On the correctness criteria of fine-grained access control in relational databases. In VLDB, 2007.

    Cited By

    View all

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WWW '11: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web
    March 2011
    840 pages
    ISBN:9781450306324
    DOI:10.1145/1963405
    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]

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 28 March 2011

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. rewriting
    2. sparql query
    3. sparql views

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    WWW '11
    WWW '11: 20th International World Wide Web Conference
    March 28 - April 1, 2011
    Hyderabad, India

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,899 of 8,196 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Implementation Strategies for Views over Property GraphsProceedings of the ACM on Management of Data10.1145/36549492:3(1-26)Online publication date: 30-May-2024
    • (2024)Towards View Management in Graph Databases2024 IEEE 40th International Conference on Data Engineering Workshops (ICDEW)10.1109/ICDEW61823.2024.00053(355-359)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
    • (2023)Optimizing SPARQL Queries with SHACLThe Semantic Web – ISWC 202310.1007/978-3-031-47240-4_3(41-60)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2023
    • (2020)Kaskade: Graph Views for Efficient Graph Analytics2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00024(193-204)Online publication date: Apr-2020
    • (2019)Large-scale Semantic Integration of Linked DataACM Computing Surveys10.1145/334555152:5(1-40)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2019
    • (2019)Resource Management in Fog/Edge ComputingACM Computing Surveys10.1145/332606652:5(1-37)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2019
    • (2019)Decidable verification of uninterpreted programsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903593:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
    • (2019)Skeletal semantics and their interpretationsProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903573:POPL(1-31)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
    • (2019)Abstraction-safe effect handlers via tunnelingProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903183:POPL(1-29)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
    • (2019)Definitional proof-irrelevance without KProceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages10.1145/32903163:POPL(1-28)Online publication date: 2-Jan-2019
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media