RDF Graph Model

From Knoesis wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

RDF Graph Model

We propose a new formal model for representing any set of RDF triples as a labeled directed multigraph, or LDM. Two existing approaches use either Node-LabeledArc-Node (NLAN) diagram or Bipartite (BI) graph. We demonstrate the three approaches using the following example.

Example

Triple Subject Predicate Object
T1 BobDylan isMarriedTo SaraLownds
T2 BarackObama isMarriedTo MichelleObama
T3 isMarriedTo rdfs:subPropertyOf isSpouseOf
T4 BobDylan isSpouseOf SaraLownds
T5 BarackObama isSpouseOf MichelleObama

For the set of RDF triples in the table above, we explain how each approach represents them in the graph.

The NLAN model

This figure demonstrates the currently recommended approach for representing RDF triples as a node-labeled arc-node diagram

The BI model

This figure demonstrates the bipartite graph model approach for representing RDF triples as a graph

The LDM model

This figure demonstrates the new approach for representing RDF triples as a labeled directed multigraph


More complex examples

We use Singleton_Property approach to represent the duration of the marriage between Bob Dylan and Sara Lownds.

This figure demonstrates the new approach for representing a more complex fact as a labeled directed multigraph

Empirical studies

RDF Datasets

We use four RDF datasets that are publicly available on the Web.

  • BKR-SP: created by Vinh Nguyen et al. ACM. This dataset is available at Singleton_Property.
  • YAGO2S-SP: also created by Vinh Nguyen et al. ACM. This dataset is also available at Singleton_Property
  • DBPedia 3.9: download at DBPedia39
  • Freebase: download at Freebase. For our experiment, we downloaded this dataset on March 30.

Experimental Result Files

We created multiple MapReduce jobs to compute the degree distributions of all three approaches on four RDF datasets.

Plotting Degree distributions

Here we plot the degree distributions of three approaches (LDM, NLAN, BI) on four RDF datasets.

For each dataset, we compute in-degree, out-degree, and total-degree distributions for LDM and NLAN approaches. BI approach has only total-degree distribution because it is undirected graph. We also compare the power law fit vs. exponential fit for each plot.

LDM

DS Degree type alpha xmin sigma R p D min Tail coverage
BKR in 1.12 1 0.02 6.78 1.24E-11 0.15 60%
out 1.23 1024 0.04 4.01 6.10E-05 0.14 28%
total 1.21 955 0.04 3.95 7.87E-05 0.13 58.33%
YAGO2S in 1.11 1 0.02 6.33 2.52E-10 0.14 96.3%
out 1.11 1 0.02 5.98 2.18E-09 0.14 96.3%
total 1.13 4 0.02 6.36 2.03E-10 0.12 92.31%
DBPEDIA in 1.49 974383 0.13 1.76 0.08 0.11 25%
out 1.46 524288 0.11 2.47 0.01 0.12 28.57%
total 1.13 16 0.02 5.38 7.39E-08 0.15 85.19%
FREEBASE in 1.16 256 0.02 5.56 2.65E-08 0.11 70%
out 1.81 16777216 0.26 1.54 0.12 0.12 16.67%
total 1.14 64 0.02 5.91 3.51E-09 0.12 79.31%

BKR-SP

YAGO2S-SP

DBPEDIA

FREEBASE

NLAN

This table shows the parameters of the best power law distributions for each datasets using the NLAN approach.

Dataset Type alpha xmin Dmin sigma R p Tail Coverage
BKR-SP in 1.933211288 895825 0.127628625 0.329940015 2.271051161 0.023143881 12.5%
out 1.343236826 3705 0.115026299 0.083247158 3.894424558 9.84E-05 31.58%
total 1.21774704 491 0.141337886 0.041150323 3.228857504 0.001242858 58.33%
YAGO2S-SP in 1.123959864 2 0.13926462 0.017708552 6.236336995 4.48E-10 92.31%
out 1.145682633 8 0.12183686 0.029136527 4.997441147 5.81E-07 73.33%
total 1.128566546 4 0.132747188 0.019165569 5.732859944 9.88E-09 84.62%
DBPEDIA in 1.648887842 970956 0.10993169 0.205196353 1.899457176 0.057504392 12.5%
out 1.668078604 715028 0.128189532 0.222692868 2.574136552 0.01004906 0%
total 1.566221177 649090 0.147983393 0.163453975 1.774194648 0.076030959 12.5%
FREEBASE in 1.176440054 410 0.117914742 0.028622356 4.937155187 7.93E-07 64.29%
out 1.10925354 1 0.119199458 0.015007128 6.185548611 6.19E-10 96.3%
total 1.148300227 59 0.123663745 0.0223571 5.311427686 1.09E-07 77.78%


BKR-SP

YAGO2S-SP

DBPEDIA

FREEBASE

BI

This table shows the parameters of the best power law distributions for each datasets using the BI approach.

Dataset alpha xmin Dmin sigma R p Tail Coverage
BKR 1.201698959 491 0.127904446 0.037454556 4.762452101 1.91E-06 62.5%
Yago2s 1.129751796 4 0.124153477 0.018728059 6.136824765 8.42E-10 92.31%
DBpedia 1.381014259 524288 0.116475129 0.092409531 2.766134059 0.005672521 26.93%
Freebase 1.684343461 24352099 0.105289281 0.216408404 2.006340037 0.044819981 13.79%

Degree Distribution

Comparison

This table compares the power-law degree distribution of three type of graphs (NLAN, LDM, and BI) based on four RDF datasets (BKR, YAGO2S, DBPEDIA and FREEBASE. The values are the percentage of data points in each degree distribution that are covered by the power law. Distribution with higher percentage will better reflect power law distribution in the tail.

DS degree NLAN LDM BI
BKR in 12.5% 60% NA
out 31.58% 28% NA
total 58.33% 58.33% 62.5%
YAGO2S in 92.31% 96.3% NA
out 73.33% 96.3% NA
total 84.62% 92.31% 92.31%
DBPEDIA in 12.5% 25% NA
out 0% 28.57% NA
total 12.5% 85.19% 29.63%
FREEBASE in 64.29% 70% NA
out 96.3% 16.67% NA
total 77.78% 79.31% 13.79

LDM and NLAN

In general, LDM distributions have higher coverage percentage than the NLAN graphs. Out of 12 degree distributions, 9 LDM distributions have higher coverage than NLAN distributions while only 2 NLAN distributions have higher percentage. Both share the same coverage for BKR total degree distribution. Especially for all the in-degree and total-degree distributions, 100% LDM distributions have higher percentage than the NLAN distributions.

LDM and BI

2 out of 4 LDM graphs have significantly higher coverage percentage than the BI graphs, particularly in the total degree distributions of DBPedia (LDM: 85.19% vs. BI: 29.63%) and Freebase (LDM: 79.31% vs. BI: 13.79%).