Fwd: deterministic naming of blank nodes

Worth looking at for a comparison.

Gregg Kellogg

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: semantic-web@w3.org
> From: ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl
> Date: May 12, 2015 at 11:14:50 PM PDT
> To: semantic-web@w3.org
> Subject: Re: deterministic naming of blank nodes
> Hi,
> Sorry for resurrecting old threads but this discussion sort of prompted me
> to work on the topic of "deterministic naming of blank nodes" and I
> thought that it might be time (six months or so later) to report back on
> some findings.
> The result is the paper here:
> Aidan Hogan. "Skolemising Blank Nodes while Preserving Isomorphism". In
> WWW, Florence, Italy, May 18–22, 2015 (to appear).
> Available from: http://aidanhogan.com/docs/skolems_blank_nodes_www.pdf
> I'll be presenting it next Friday if anyone happens to be around the
> Florence area.
> Roughly speaking, the paper presents an algorithm for deterministically
> labelling blank nodes of any RDF graph such that the labels of two
> isomorphic RDF graphs will "correspond". This could be used to find
> isomorphic RDF graphs in a large set of RDF graphs (without needing
> pairwise checks), for computing signatures, or for Skolemising in such a
> way that the output of two RDF graphs will be equal if and only if they
> are isomorphic.
> The algorithm again works for general RDF graphs and doesn't assume any
> well-behavedness or similar. The algorithm is exponential (based roughly
> on a Nauty-style recursion) but the experiments show that, in terms of
> isomorphism at least, you would have to have really really really *really*
> weird RDF graphs to run into any real trouble (we're talking cliques of
> blank nodes with k>55 or Miyazki graphs or similar). We skolemised all the
> individual graphs in the BTC-14 collection ... the slowest took 31–40
> seconds, mainly due to its size: 7.3 million triples with 254 thousand
> blank nodes.
> One drawback of the current approach is that at the moment you have to
> load the RDF graph into memory, which may be prohibitive for very very
> large graphs (of connected blank nodes), but I'm not sure how often that
> happens in practice. (It wasn't a problem for any of the graphs in the
> BTC-14 dataset for example.)
> There's also a software package available here:
> https://github.com/aidhog/blabel/wiki
> Of course the usual disclaimers about research code apply!
> Anyways, I thought these results might be of interest and hopefully might
> have applications in the context of Skolemisation or signing RDF graphs or
> similar.
> Best,
> Aidan
>> On 21/10/2014 04:30, Laurens Rietveld wrote:
>> Coincidentally, I will present SampLD[1] in two hours at the ISWC (11.00
>> local time, sala 300), which might be suitable for your experiment.
>> SampLD is a scalable approach for sampling RDF graphs, solely using the
>> topology of the graph:
>>    The Linked Data cloud has grown to become the largest knowledge base
>>    ever constructed.
>>    Its size is now turning into a major bottleneck for many
>>    applications. In order to facilitate access to this structured
>>    information, this paper proposes an automatic sampling method
>>    targeted at maximizing answer coverage for applications using SPARQL
>>    querying.
>>    The approach presented in this paper is novel: no similar RDF
>>    sampling approach exist. Additionally, the concept of creating a
>>    sample aimed at maximizing SPARQL answer coverage, is unique.
>>    We empirically show that the relevance of triples for sampling (a
>>    semantic notion) is influenced by the topology of the graph (purely
>>    structural), and can be determined
>>    without prior knowledge of the queries.
>>    Experiments show a significantly higher recall of topology based
>>    sampling methods over random and naive baseline approaches (e.g. up
>>    to 90% for Open-BioMed at a sample size of 6%).
>> And, to support LOD-scale experiments, you might be interested in the
>> LOD Laundromat[2,3] as well, presented this Thursday at ISWC as well.
>> Here, we (re)publish clean, sanitized versions of Linked Data sets as
>> sorted gzipped n-triples (13 billion triples and counting), with
>> corresponding meta-data (e.g. the number of blank nodes in this
> dataset[4]).
>> Best, Laurens
>> [1]
>> http://laurensrietveld.nl/pdf/Structural_Properties_as_Proxy_for_Semantic_Relevance_in_RDF_Graph_Sampling.pdf
>> [2]
>> http://laurensrietveld.nl/pdf/LOD_Laundromat_-_A_Uniform_Way_of_Publishing_Other_Peoples_Dirty_Data.pdf
>> [3] http://lodlaundromat.org
>> [4]
>> http://lodlaundromat.org/sparql/?query=PREFIX+llm%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Flodlaundromat.org%2Fmetrics%2Fontology%2F%3E%0APREFIX+void%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Frdfs.org%2Fns%2Fvoid%23%3E%0ASELECT+*+WHERE+%7B%0A++%5B%5D+llm%3Ametrics%2Fllm%3AdistinctBlankNodes+%3FnumBnodes+%3B%0A++++%09void%3AdataDump+%3Fdownload%0A%7D+ORDER+BY+DESC(%3FnumBnodes)+LIMIT+100
>> --
>> VU University Amsterdam____
>> Faculty of Exact Sciences____
>> Department of Computer Science____
>> De Boelelaan 1081 A____
>> 1081 HV Amsterdam____
>> The Netherlands
>> www.laurensrietveld.nl <http://www.laurensrietveld.nl>
>> laurens.rietveld@vu.nl <mailto:laurens.rietveld@vu.nl>
>> Visiting address:
>> De Boelelaan 1081____
>> Science Building Room T312
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org
>> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>>>    On 10/07/2014 10:25 PM, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>>>> On 2014-10-07, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>> That may be true, but it is hard for me to see how any benefit this
>>>> could bring would outweigh the absolute pain in the ass it would be
>>>> for everyone to change their RDF stacks.
>>    It was not me who said that.   That was Alan Ruttenberg.
>>> So, why not subdivide the process? It ought to be easy and efficient
>>> enough to detect a rather expansive subset of graphs which do admit
>>> unique and efficient labeling. At the very least graphs which only
> use
>>> a blank node precisely twice (to define something and to refer to it
>>> once as in the bracket notation) are pretty simple, using a simple
>>> hash table with counters -- that perhaps being the commonest case as
>>> well.
>>> If the test succeeds, define a unique labeling based on the rest of
>>> the attributes of the triple and lexical ordering; if not, ask the
>>> user whether general graph isomorphism comparison is wanted, and if
>>> so, do that, somehow signaling that it really went that far (perhaps
>>> inband in the format of the labels? or out of band as the case may
>>> be); if not, or if you can't do graph isomorphism in your code, then
>>> slap on nonunique labels, again differentiating them somehow from the
>>> first two cases.
>>> That is certainly not an easy or clean solution, but it doesn't break
>>> the stack, and it works in most of the places where you want to do
>>> fast path processing under the assumption that in fact the labels are
>>> canonical, and can be relied upon to have 1-1 correpondence from
>>> syntax to node.
>>    I agree.   Does anyone have a good sampling of the LOD cloud we could
>>    easily use for this experiment?
>>           -- Sandro

Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 06:48:15 UTC