The trade-off between language expressiveness and system scalability (E&S) is a well-known problem in RDF stream reasoning. Higher expressiveness supports more complex reasoning logic, however, it may also hinder system scalability. Current research mainly focuses on logical frameworks suitable for stream reasoning as well as the implementation and the evaluation of prototype systems. These systems are normally developed in a centralized setting which suffer from inherent limited scalability, while an in-depth study of applying distributed solutions to cover E&S is still missing. In this paper, we aim to explore the feasibility of applying modern distributed computing frameworks to meet E&S all together. To do so, we first propose BigSR, a technical demonstrator that supports a positive fragment of the LARS framework. For the sake of generality and to cover a wide variety of use cases, BigSR relies on the two main execution models adopted by major distributed execution frameworks: Bulk Synchronous Processing (BSP) and Record-at-A-Time (RAT). Accordingly, we implement BigSR on top of Apache Spark Streaming (BSP model) and Apache Flink (RAT model). In order to conclude on the impacts of BSP and RAT on E&S, we analyze the ability of the two models to support distributed stream reasoning and identify several types of use cases characterized by their levels of support. This classification allows for quantifying the E&S trade-off by assessing the scalability of each type of use case its level of expressiveness. Then, we conduct a series of experiments with 15 queries from 4 different datasets. Our experiments show that BigSR over both BSP and RAT generally scales up to high throughput beyond million-triples per second (with or without recursion), and RAT attains sub-millisecond delay for stateless query operators.
Several RSP systems have been implemented over the last few years. The most popular ones correspond to centralized engines, C-SPARQL @cite_31 , CQELS @cite_6 , ETALIS @cite_19 and SPARQL @math @cite_25 . Systems like CQELS-cloud @cite_16 and Strider @cite_11 tackle the scalability issue but distributing stream processing. Available RSP systems are equipped with their own syntax, which generally take the form of continuous versions of the standard SPARQL grammar. This limits the expressiveness on temporal logical operators, the combination or even nesting of window operators. Moreover, the support of recursion is also missing.
@cite_6 @cite_19 @cite_31 @cite_16 @cite_25 @cite_11
1528610972 2114314131 200641512 2145292307 2614359430
An increasing number of use cases require a timely extraction of non-trivial knowledge from semantically annotated data streams, especially on the Web and for the Internet of Things (IoT). Often, this extraction requires expressive reasoning, which is challenging to compute on large streams. We propose Laser, a new reasoner that supports a pragmatic, non-trivial fragment of the logic LARS which extends Answer Set Programming (ASP) for streams. At its core, Laser implements a novel evaluation procedure which annotates formulae to avoid the re-computation of duplicates at multiple time points. This procedure, combined with a judicious implementation of the LARS operators, is responsible for significantly better runtimes than the ones of other state-of-the-art systems like C-SPARQL and CQELS, or an implementation of LARS which runs on the ASP solver Clingo. This enables the application of expressive logic-based reasoning to large streams and opens the door to a wider range of stream reasoning use cases. Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative to the widely used Times Cited criterion for analysing citation networks. The approach involves taking account of the natures of the papers that cite a given paper, so as to differentiate between papers that attract the same number of citations.Design methodology approach – ArticleRank is an algorithm that has been derived from Google's PageRank algorithm to measure the influence of journal articles. ArticleRank is applied to two datasets – a citation network based on an early paper on webometrics, and a self‐citation network based on the 19 most cited papers in the Journal of Documentation – using citation data taken from the Web of Knowledge database.Findings – ArticleRank values provide a different ranking of a set of papers from that provided by the corresponding Times Cited values, and overcomes the inability of the latter to differentiate between papers with the same numbers of citations. The difference in rankings between Times Cited ... Scholars are increasingly citing electronic “web references” which are not preserved in libraries or full text archives. WebCite is a new standard for citing web references. To “webcite” a document involves archiving the cited Web page through www.webcitation.org and citing the WebCite permalink instead of (or in addition to) the unstable live Web page. This journal has amended its “instructions for authors” accordingly, asking authors to archive cited Web pages before submitting a manuscript. Almost 200 other journals are already using the system. We discuss the rationale for WebCite, its technology, and how scholars, editors, and publishers can benefit from the service. Citing scholars initiate an archiving process of all cited Web references, ideally before they submit a manuscript. Authors of online documents and websites which are expected to be cited by others can ensure that their work is permanently available by creating an archived copy using WebCite and providing the citation information including the WebCite link on their Web document(s). Editors should ask their authors to cache all cited Web addresses (Uniform Resource Locators, or URLs) “prospectively” before submitting their manuscripts to their journal. Editors and publishers should also instruct their copyeditors to cache cited Web material if the author has not done so already. Finally, WebCite can process publisher submitted “citing articles” (submitted for example as eXtensible Markup Language [XML] documents) to automatically archive all cited Web pages shortly before or on publication. Finally, WebCite can act as a focussed crawler, caching retrospectively references of already published articles. Copyright issues are addressed by honouring respective Internet standards (robot exclusion files, no-cache and no-archive tags). Long-term preservation is ensured by agreements with libraries and digital preservation organizations. The resulting WebCite Index may also have applications for research assessment exercises, being able to measure the impact of Web services and published Web documents through access and Web citation metrics. @PARASPLIT [J Med Internet Res 2005;7(5):e60]