skip to main content
10.1145/2594538.2594542acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespodsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Containment and equivalence of well-designed SPARQL

Published:18 June 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Query containment and query equivalence constitute important computational problems in the context of static query analysis and optimization. While these problems have been intensively studied for fragments of relational calculus, almost no works exist for the semantic web query language SPARQL. In this paper, we carry out a comprehensive complexity analysis of containment and equivalence for several fragments of SPARQL: we start with the fundamental fragment of well-designed SPARQL restricted to the AND and OPTIONAL operator. We then study basic extensions in the form of the UNION operator and/or projection. The results obtained range from NP-completeness to undecidability.

References

  1. R. Angles and C. Gutierrez. The expressive power of SPARQL. In ISWC, volume 5318 of LNCS, pages 114--129. Springer, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. M. Arenas and J. Pérez. Querying semantic web data with SPARQL. In PODS, pages 305--316. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. A. Calı, G. Gottlob, and M. Kifer. Taming the infinite chase: Query answering under expressive relational constraints. In KR, pages 70--80. AAAI Press, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. A. K. Chandra and P. M. Merlin. Optimal implementation of conjunctive queries in relational data bases. In STOC, pages 77--90. ACM, 1977. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. W. Chekol, J. Euzenat, P. Genevès, and N. Layaıda. SPARQL query containment under RDFS entailment regime. In IJCAR, volume 7364 of LNCS, pages 134--148. Springer, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. W. Chekol, J. Euzenat, P. Genevès, and N. Layaıda. SPARQL query containment under SHI axioms. In AAAI. AAAI Press, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. R. Cyganiak, D. Wood, and M. Lanthaler. RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. W3C Recommendation, W3C, Feb. 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Harris and A. Seaborne. SPARQL 1.1 Query Language. W3C Recommendation, W3C, Mar. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. D. S. Johnson and A. C. Klug. Testing containment of conjunctive queries under functional and inclusion dependencies. JCSS, 28(1):167--189, 1984.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. G. Karvounarakis, A. Magkanaraki, S. Alexaki, V. Christophides, D. Plexousakis, M. Scholl, and K. Tolle. Querying the semantic web with RQL. Computer Networks, 42(5):617--640, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. A. C. Klug. On conjunctive queries containing inequalities. J. ACM, 35(1):146--160, 1988. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. A. Letelier, J. Pérez, R. Pichler, and S. Skritek. Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. In PODS, pages 89--100. ACM, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. A. Letelier, J. Pérez, R. Pichler, and S. Skritek. Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. ACM Trans. Database Syst., 38(4):25, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Pérez, M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. In ISWC, volume 4273 of LNCS, pages 30--43. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Pérez, M. Arenas, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM TODS, 34(3), 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. A. Polleres. From SPARQL to rules (and back). In WWW, pages 787--796. ACM, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. E. Prud'hommeaux and A. Seaborne. SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation, %W3C, Jan. 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Y. Sagiv and M. Yannakakis. Equivalences among relational expressions with the union and difference operators. J. ACM, 27(4):633--655, 1980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Schmidt, M. Meier, and G. Lausen. Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In ICDT, pages 4--33. ACM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Serfiotis, I. Koffina, V. Christophides, and V. Tannen. Containment and minimization of RDF/S query patterns. In ISWC, volume 3729 of LNCS, pages 607--623. Springer, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Containment and equivalence of well-designed SPARQL

    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
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      PODS '14: Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART symposium on Principles of database systems
      June 2014
      300 pages
      ISBN:9781450323758
      DOI:10.1145/2594538
      • General Chair:
      • Richard Hull,
      • Program Chair:
      • Martin Grohe

      Copyright © 2014 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: 18 June 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      PODS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate22of67submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate642of2,707submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader