On the relation between SPARQL1.1 and Answer Set Programming

Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics

Volumn 23, Issue 1-2, 2013, Pages 159-212

  Polleres, Axel ^a   Wallner, Johannes Peter ^b  

^a SIEMENS AG ÖSTERREICH   (Austria)

^b VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

Answer Set Programming; Datalog; Semantic Web; SPARQL

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879637757     PISSN: 11663081     EISSN: 19585780     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/11663081.2013.798992     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (90)

1. Abiteboul, S, Hull, R, and, Vianu, V. 1995. Foundations of Databases, Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Alkhateeb, F, Baget, J-F, and, Euzenat, J. 2009. Extending SPARQL with regular expression patterns (for querying RDF). Journal of Web Semantics, 7: 57-73.
3. Angles, R., & Gutierrez, C. (2008). The expressive power of SPARQL. In A. P. Sheth et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web-ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30 (2008). Proceedings (pp. 114-129). New York, NY: Springer.
4. Angles, R., & Gutierrez, C. (2011). Subqueries in SPARQL. In P. Barceló & V. Tannen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Alberto Mendelzon International Workshop on Foundations of Data Management, Santiago, Chile, May 9-12, 2011. Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-749/paper19.pdf)
5. Arenas, M., Bertails, A., Prudhommeaux, E., & Sequeda, J. (2012, September 27). A direct mapping of relational data to RDF. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-rdb-direct- mapping-20120927/)
6. Arenas, M., Conca, S., & Pérez, J. (2012). Counting beyond a Yottabyte, or how SPARQL 1.1 property paths will prevent adoption of the standard. In A. Mille, F. L. Gandon, J. Misselis, M. Rabinovich, & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference (2012). WWW 2012, Lyon, France, April 16-20, 2012 (pp. 629-638). New York, NY: ACM Press.
7. Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C., & Pérez, J. (2009). On the semantics of SPARQL. In R. D. Virgilio, F. Giunchiglia & L. Tanca (Eds.), Semantic Web Information Management: a Model-Based Perspective (pp. 281-307). New York, NY: Springer.
8. Baader, F, Calvanese, D, McGuinness, DL, Nardi, D, and, Patel-Schneider, PF., eds. 2003. The Description Logic Handbook: theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Beckett, D., & Berners-Lee, T. (2008, January 14). Turtle-terse RDF triple language. W3C Team Submission. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/)
11. Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the Web: the original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web, New York, NY: Harper Collins.
12. Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked data. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html)
13. Boley, H., Kifer, M., Pǎtrânjan, P.-L., & Polleres, A. (2007). Rule interchange on the web. In G. Antoniou, et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Third International Summer School 2007, Dresden, Germany, September 3-7, 2007, tutorial lectures (pp. 269-309). New York, NY: Springer.
14. Brewka, G, Eiter, T, and, Truszczynski, M. 2001. Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM, 54 (12): 92-103.
15. Brickley, D., & Guha, R. (2004, February 10). RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/)
16. Brickley, D., & Miller, L. (2007, November 2). FOAF vocabulary specification 0.91. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/)
17. Calimeri, F., & Ianni, G. (2005). External sources of computation for answer set solvers. In C. Baral, G. Greco, N. Leone & G. Terracina (Eds.), Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 8th International Conference, LPNMR 2005, Diamante, Italy, September 5-8, 2005, proceedings (pp. 105-118). Berlin: Springer.
18. Carroll, J, Bizer, C, Hayes, P, and, Stickler, P. 2005. Named graphs. Journal of Web Semantics, 3 (247-267): 2005
19. Chekol, M. W. (2013). Analyse statique de requête pour le web sémantique (Static analysis of semantic web queries). PhD thesis, University of Grenoble, France.
20. Chekol, M. W., Euzenat, J., Genevés, P., & Layaïda, N. (2012). SPARQL query containment under RDFS entailment regime. In B. Gramlich, D. Miller & U. Sattler (Eds.), Automated Reasoning-6th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2012, Manchester, UK, June 26-29, 2012 (pp. 134-148). New York, NY: Springer.
21. Cyganiak, R. (2005, September 28). A relational algebra for SPARQL (Tech. Rep. No. HPL-2005-170). Bristol: HP Labs.
22. Dantsin, E, Eiter, T, Gottlob, G, and, Voronkov, A. 2001. Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. ACM Computing Surveys, 33: 374-425.
23. Das, S., Sundara, S., & Cyganiak, R. (2012, September 27). R2RML: RDB to RDF mapping language. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-r2rml-20120927/)
24. de Bruijn, J. (2010, June 22). RIF RDF and OWL compatibility. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf- owl/)
25. de Bruijn, J., Eiter, T., Polleres, A., & Tompits, H. (2007). Embedding non-ground logic programs into autoepistemic logic for knowledge-base combination. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-12, 2007 (pp. 304-309). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
26. de Bruijn, J., Franconi, E., & Tessaris, S. (2005). Logical reconstruction of normative RDF. In B. C. Grau, I. Horrocks, B. Parsia, & P. F. Patel-Schneider (Eds.), Proceedings of the OWLED 05 Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions, Galway, Ireland, November 11-12, 2005. Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-188/sub24. pdf)
27. de Bruijn, J., Pearce, D., Polleres, A., & Valverde, A. (2007). Quantified equilibrium logic and hybrid rules. In M. Marchiori, J. Z. Pan & C. de Sainte Marie (Eds.), Web Reasoning and Rule Systems, First International Conference, RR 2007, Innsbruck, Austria, June 7-8, 2007, proceedings (pp. 58-72). Berlin: Springer.
28. Bruijn, J, Pearce, D, Polleres, A, and, Valverde, A. 2010. A semantical framework for hybrid knowledge bases. Knowledge and Information Systems, 25 (81-104): 2010
29. Duerst, M., & Suignard, M. (2005, January). Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs). RFC 3987 (Proposed Standard). Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
30. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., & Krennwallner, T. (2009). Answer set programming: a primer. In S. Tessaris et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for Information Systems, 5th International Summer School 2009, Brixen-Bressanone, Italy, August 30-September 4, 2009, tutorial lectures (pp. 40-110). Berlin: Springer.
31. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., & Polleres, A. (2008). Rules and ontologies for the semantic web. In C. Baroglio, P. A. Bonatti, J. Maluszynski, M. Marchiori, A. Polleres & S. Schaffert (Eds.), Reasoning Web, 4th International Summer School 2008, Venice, Italy, September 7-11, 2008, tutorial lectures (pp. 1-53). New York, NY: Springer.
32. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Polleres, A., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2006). Reasoning with rules and ontologies. In Pedro Barahona, François Bry, Enrico Franconi, Ulrike Sattler & Nicola Henze (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, tutorial lectures (pp. 93-127). New York, NY: Springer.
33. Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2005). A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer set programming. In L. Pack Kaelbling & A. Saffiotti (Eds.), IJCAI-05, proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, July 30-August 5, 2005 (pp. 90-96). Denver, CO: Professional Book Center.
34. Eiter, T., Lukasiewicz, T., Schindlauer, R., & Tompits, H. (2004). Combining answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. In Didier Dubois, Christopher A. Welty & Mary-Anne Williams (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (KR2004), Whistler, Canada, June 2-5, 2004. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
35. Eiter, T., Lutz, C., Ortiz, C., & Simkus, M. (2009). Query answering in description logics with transitive roles. In C. Boutilier (Ed.), IJCAI 2009, proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Pasadena, California, USA, July 11-17, 2009 (pp. 759-764). Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org.
36. Faber, W., Leone, N., & Pfeifer, G. (2004). Recursive aggregates in disjunctive logic programs: semantics and complexity. In J. J. Alferes & J. Leite (Eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, 9th European Conference, JELIA 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, September 27-30, 2004, proceedings (pp. 200-212). Berlin: Springer.
37. Gebser, M, Kaminski, R, Kaufmann, B, and, Schaub, T. 2012. Answer Set Solving in Practice, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
38. Gelder, A. V., Ross, K., & Schlipf, J. S. (1988). Unfounded sets and well-founded semantics for general logic programs. In Alberto O. Mendelzon & Jan Paredaens (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, June 1-3, 1998, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 221-230). New York, NY: ACM Press.
39. Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In R. A. Kowalski & K. Bowen (Eds.), Logic Programming, proceedings of the Fifth International Conference and Symposium, Seattle, Washington, August 15-19, 1988 (pp. 1070-1080). Cambridge, MA, 1988. MIT Press.
40. Gelfond, M, and, Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9: 365-385.
41. Glimm, B., Horrocks, I., & Sattler, U. (2008). Unions of conjunctive queries in SHOQ. In G. Brewka & J. Lang (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference, KR 2008, Sydney, Australia, September 16-19, 2008 (pp. 252-262). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
42. Glimm, B, Lutz, C, Horrocks, I, and, Sattler, U. 2008. Conjunctive query answering for the description logic SHIQ. Journal Of Artificial Intelligence Research, 31: 157-204.
43. Glimm, B., Ogbuji, C., Hawke, S., Herman, I., Parsia, B., Polleres, A., & Seaborne, A. SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. (2013, March 21). SPARQL 1.1 Entailment Regimes. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/)
44. Glimm, B., & Rudolph, S. (2010). Status QIO: conjunctive query entailment is decidable. In F. Lin, U. Sattler & M. Truszczynski (Eds.), Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference, KR 2010, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 9-13, 2010 (pp. 225-235). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
45. Grosof, B. N., Horrocks, I., Volz, R., & Decker, S. (2003). Description logic programs: combining logic programs with description logics. In The International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference, WWW2003, Budapest, Hungary, 20-24 May 2003 (pp. 48-57). New York, NY: ACM Press.
46. Harris, S., & Seaborne, A. (2013, March 21). SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/)
47. Hayes, P. (2004, February 10). RDF semantics. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/)
48. Heath, T, and, Bizer, C. 2011. Linked data: evolving the web into a global data space, San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool.
49. Ianni, G., Krennwallner, T., Martello, A., & Polleres, A. (2009). Dynamic querying of mass-storage RDF data with rule-based entailment regimes. In A. Bernstein et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web-ISWC 2009, 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-29, 2009. Proceedings (pp. 310-327). New York, NY: Springer.
50. Kifer, M., & Boley, H. (2012, December 11). RIF overview. W3C Working Group Note. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-overview/)
51. Kollia, I., Glimm, B., & Horrocks, I. (2011). SPARQL query answering over OWL ontologies. In G. Antoniou, et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web: Research and Applications-8th Extended Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2011, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 29-June 2, 2011, proceedings, part I (p. 382396). New York, NY: Springer.
52. Krisnadhi, A., Maier, F., & Hitzler, P. (2011). OWL and rules. In A. Polleres et al. (Eds.), Reasoning Web. Semantic Technologies for the Web of Data-7th International Summer School 2011, Galway, Ireland, August 23-27, 2011, tutorial lectures (pp. 382-415). New York, NY: Springer.
53. Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., & Hitzler, P. (2007a). Complexity boundaries for Horn description logics. In R. C. Holte & A. Howe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 22-26, 2007, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (pp. 452-457). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
54. Krötzsch, M., Rudolph, S., & Hitzler, P. (2007b). Conjunctive queries for a tractable fragment of OWL 1.1. In K. Aberer et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007, Busan, South Korea, November 11-15, 2007 (pp. 310-323). New York, NY: Springer.
55. Letelier, A., Pérez, J., Pichler, R., & Skritek, S. (2012). Static analysis and optimization of semantic web queries. In M. Benedikt, M. Krötzsch & M. Lenzerini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012 (pp. 89-100). New York, NY: ACM Press.
56. Levy, AY, and, Rousset, M-C. 1998. Combining Horn rules and description logics in CARIN. Artificial Intelligence, 104: 165-209.
57. Lifschitz, V. (1999). Answer set planning. In D. D. Schreye (Ed.), Logic Programming: the 1999 International Conference, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, November 29-December 4, 1999 (pp. 23-37). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
58. Losemann, K., & Martens, W. (2012). The complexity of evaluating path expressions in SPARQL. In M. Benedikt, M. Krötzsch & M. Lenzerini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGMOD-SIGACT-SIGART Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, PODS 2012, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, May 20-24, 2012 (pp. 101-112). New York, NY: ACM Press.
59. Lu, J., Cao, F., Ma, L., Yu, Y., & Pan, Y. (2007). An effective SPARQL support over relational databases. In V. Christophides, M. Collard & C. Gutierrez (Eds.), Semantic Web, Ontologies and Databases, VLDB Workshop, SWDB-ODBIS 2007, Vienna, Austria, September 24, 2007, revised selected papers (pp. 57-76). New York, NY: Springer.
60. Lukasiewicz, T. 2010. A novel combination of answer set programming with description logics for the semantic web. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 22: 1577-1592.
61. Manola, F., & Miller, E. (2004, February 10). RDF primer. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/ )
62. Marek, V. W. (1999). Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In K. R. Apt, V. W. Marek, M. Truszczynski & D. S. Warren (Eds.), In the logic programming paradigm: a 25-year perspective (pp. 375-398). Berlin: Springer.
63. Motik, B., Grau, B. C., Horrocks, I., Wu, Z., Fokoue, A., & Lutz, C. (Eds.). (2012, December 11). OWL 2 web ontology language profiles (second edition). W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/ REC-owl2-profiles-20121211/)
64. Motik, B., & Rosati, R. (2007). A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In M. M. Veloso (Ed.), IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-12, 2007 (pp. 477-482). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
65. Motik, B, Sattler, U, and, Studer, R. 2005. Query answering for OWL-DL with rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3: 41-60.
66. Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25: 241-273.
67. Niemelä, I., Simons, P., & Soininen, T. (1999). Stable model semantics of weight constraint rules. In M. Gelfond, N. Leone & G. Pfeifer (Eds.), Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 5th International Conference, LPNMR99, El Paso, Texas, USA, December 2-4, 1999, proceedings (pp. 317-331). New York, NY: Springer.
68. Pearce, D., & Valverde, A. (2008). Quantified equilibrium logic and foundations for answer set programs. In M. Garcia de la Banda & E. Pontelli (Eds.), Logic Programming, 24th International Conference, ICLP 2008, Udine, Italy, December 9-13 2008, proceedings (pp. 546-560). New York, NY: Springer.
69. Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2006). Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. In I. F. Cruz, et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web-ISWC 2006, 5th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2006, Athens, GA, USA, November 5-9, 2006, proceedings (pp. 30-43). New York, NY: Springer.
70. Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2008). nSPARQL: a navigational language for RDF. In A. P. Sheth et al. (Eds.), The Semantic Web-ISWC 2008, 7th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, October 26-30, 2008. Proceedings (pp. 66-81). New York, NY: Springer.
71. Pérez, J., Arenas, M., & Gutierrez, C. (2009). Semantics and complexity of SPARQL. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 34 (3), Article 16. doi: 10.1145/1567274.1567278.
72. Polleres, A. (2007). From SPARQL to rules (and back). In C. L. Williamson, M. E. Zurko, P. F. Patel-Schneider & P. J. Shenoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada, May 8-12, 2007 (pp. 787-796). New York, NY: ACM Press.
73. Polleres, A. (2013). Agreement technologies and the semantic web. In S. Ossowski (Ed.), Agreement technologies (pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Springer.
74. Polleres, A., Scharffe, F., & Schindlauer, R. (2007). SPARQL++ for mapping between RDF vocabularies. In R. Meersman & Z. Tari (Eds.), On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: OTM Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS 2007, Vilamoura, Portugal, November 25-30, 2007, proceedings, part I (pp. 878-896). New York, NY: Springer.
75. Polleres, A., & Schindlauer, R. (2007). dlvhex-sparql: a SPARQL-compliant query engine based on dlvhex. In A. Polleres, D. Pearce, S. Heymans & E. Ruckhaus (Eds.), Proceedings of the ICLP07 Workshop on Applications of Logic Programming to the Web, Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, ALPSWS 2007, Porto, Portugal, September 13th, 2007 (pp. 3-12). Tilburg: CEUR-WS.org.
76. Prudhommeaux, E., & Seaborne, A. (2008, January 15). SPARQL query language for RDF. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/)
77. Przymusinski, T. C. (1988). On the declarative semantics of deductive databases and logic programs. In J. Minker (Ed.), Foundations of deductive databases and logic programming (pp. 193-216). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
78. Rosati, R. 2005. On the decidability and complexity of integrating ontologies and rules. Journal of Web Semantics, 3: 61-73.
79. Rosati, R. (2005). Semantic and computational advantages of the safe integration of ontologies and rules. In F. Fages & S. Soliman (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Semantic Web Reasoning, Third International Workshop, PPSWR 2005, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, September 11-16, 2005, proceedings (pp. 50-64). New York, NY: Springer.
80. Rosati, R. (2006). Integrating ontologies and rules: semantic and computational issues. In P. Barahona, F. Bry, E. Franconi, U. Sattler & N. Henze (Eds.), Reasoning Web, Second International Summer School 2006, Lisbon, Portugal, September 4-8, 2006, tutorial lectures (pp. 128-151). New York, NY: Springer.
81. Rosati, R. (2006). + log: tight integration of description logics and disjunctive datalog. In P. Doherty, J. Mylopoulos & C. Welty (Eds.), Proceedings, Tenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Lake District of the United Kingdom, June 2-5, 2006 (pp. 68-78). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
82. Schenk, S., & Staab, S. (2007). Networked RDF graphs. Universität Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.uni-koblenz.de/ sschenk/publications/2006/ngtr.pdf)
83. Schenk, S., & Staab, S. (2008). Networked graphs: a declarative mechanism for SPARQL rules, SPARQL views and RDF data integration on the web. In J. Huai, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2008, Beijing, China, April 21-25, 2008 (pp. 585-594). New York, NY: ACM Press.
84. Schindlauer, R. 2006. Answer-set programming for the semantic web, Vienna University of Technology: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
85. Sequeda, M., Meier, M., & Lausen, G. (2010). Foundations of SPARQL query optimization. In L. Segoufin (Ed.), Database Theory-ICDT 2010, 13th International Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, March 23-25, 2010, proceedings (pp. 4-33). New York, NY: ACM Press.
86. Sequeda, J., Arenas, M., & Miranker, D. P. (2012). On directly mapping relational databases to RDF and OWL. In A. Mille, F. L. Gandon, J. Misselis, M. Rabinovich & S. Staab (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, WWW 2012, Lyon, France, April 16-20, 2012 (pp. 649-658). New York, NY: ACM Press.
87. Smith, M. K., Welty, C., & McGuinness, D. L. (2004, February 10). OWL web ontology language guide. W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/)
88. SQL-99. (1999, October 1). Information technology-database language SQL-part 3: call level interface (SQL/CLI) (Tech. Rep. No. INCITS/ISO/IEC 9075-3). INCITS/ ISO/IEC. (Standard specification.).
89. Ullman, JD. 1989. Principles of database and knowledge-base systems, New York, NY: Computer Science Press.
90. W3C OWL 2 Working Group. (2012, December 11). OWL 2 web ontology language document overview (second edition). W3C Recommendation. (Retrieved, 15 April 2013, from http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/)