RDFS reasoning and query answering on top of DHTs

36Citations
Citations of this article
55Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We study the problem of distributed RDFS reasoning and query answering on top of distributed hash tables. Scalable, distributed RDFS reasoning is an essential functionality for providing the scalability and performance that large-scale Semantic Web applications require. Our goal in this paper is to compare and evaluate two well-known approaches to RDFS reasoning, namely backward and forward chaining, on top of distributed hash tables. We show how to implement both algorithms on top of the distributed hash table Bamboo and prove their correctness. We also study the time-space trade-off exhibited by the algorithms analytically, and experimentally by evaluating our algorithms on PlanetLab. © 2008 Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

References Powered by Scopus

Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location, and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems

3511Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

LUBM: A benchmark for OWL knowledge base systems

1162Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Sesame: A generic architecture for storing and querying RDF and RDF Schema

838Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Scalable distributed reasoning using MapReduce

159Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

OWL reasoning with WebPIE: Calculating the closure of 100 billion triples

105Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Parallel materialization of the finite RDFS closure for hundreds of millions of triples

89Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kaoudi, Z., Miliaraki, I., & Koubarakis, M. (2008). RDFS reasoning and query answering on top of DHTs. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) (Vol. 5318 LNCS, pp. 499–516). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88564-1_32

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 33

66%

Researcher 13

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 46

92%

Engineering 2

4%

Physics and Astronomy 1

2%

Environmental Science 1

2%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free