Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

FLUID: A Common Model for Semantic Structural Graph Summaries Based on Equivalence Relations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FLUID unifies 19 graph summary models under one language

desk verdict FLUID is a genuinely useful unifying proposal for structural graph summaries, but the current manuscript has two definition bugs, a copy-paste error, and an overstated empirical claim; all are fixable and it deserves serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01528 v3 pith:ULSNDRAO submitted 2019-08-05 cs.DB

Till Blume , David Richerby , Ansgar Scherp This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DB
keywords graphsummarizationRDFgraphsequivalencerelationssemanticwebbisimulationSchemaparameterizedalgorithmslinkeddata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FLUID is a formal common language for defining structural summaries of RDF graphs. The paper's central claim is that every one of the 19 structural graph summary models it analyzes can be written as an expression built from four schema elements and six parameterizations, all operating through equivalence relations over vertices. If that claim is right, graph summaries designed in isolation for different tasks are special cases of one model, and a single parameterized algorithm can compute any of them. The paper proves that computing a FLUID-defined summary takes $O(n^2)$ time in the worst case with respect to the number of edges $n$, typically $\Theta(n)$ in practice on billion-edge web graphs; adding RDF Schema inference can make the worst case quadratic because inferred triples can multiply.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equivalence relation itself: a FLUID graph summary model is a triple of a data graph, an equivalence relation over vertices, and payload elements. The elementary relations POC, PC, and OC compare subjects by their outgoing predicate–object pairs, predicates, or objects; the complex schema element $(\sim_s, \sim_p, \sim_o)$ lifts this to arbitrary equivalences on subjects, predicates, and objects, which is how neighbor schemas enter. Six parameterizations modify these relations, and the extended union $\cup_{\text{ex}}$ combines relations in an 'or' fashion while preserving the equivalence property. Because every schema element is an equivalence relation, the algorithm can extract each vertex's schema once, hash it, and merge vertices with equal hashes via union-find; this is what makes the single parameterized algorithm and the near-linear typical behavior possible.

What would settle it

Take a small graph in which two vertices share one property directly and a third vertex shares a different property with one of them, then try to compute $\rho$ from Definition 14 by iterating to a fixed point; if the final partition depends on the starting partition or no fixed point exists, the instance parameterization is not well-defined and the expressiveness claim over the literature fails. A second check is to pick any one of the 19 literature models, compute its canonical vertex partition and the partition given by its FLUID encoding in Table 3 on a series of random graphs, and look for a discrepancy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a unification: the many structural graph summary models in the literature, despite being built for different tasks and defined with different data structures, all partition vertices according to structural features that can be captured by equivalence relations. The paper defines three simple schema elements—predicate-object cluster, predicate cluster, and object cluster—and one complex schema element, plus six parameterizations (label, set, chaining, direction, inference, and instance) that adjust what the schema elements see. It then shows that all 19 analyzed models from the literature correspond to FLUID expressions, and that any such expression is computed by one parameterized algorithm. Consequences in the paper: no new algorithm is needed for a new summary definition, summaries become comparable by their parameter settings, and reasoning-augmented summaries can still be computed, with worst-case $O(n^2)$ time and typical $\Theta(n)$ behavior on large real-world graphs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the related-property instance relation $\rho$ in Definition 14 is well-defined, even though its definition refers to the equivalence classes $[s]_\rho$ it is supposed to create; four of the literature encodings in Table 3 depend on this relation, so if $\rho$ is ambiguous the expressiveness claim is not settled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any FLUID-defined summary, including combinations not found in the literature, can be computed by the same parameterized algorithm, so a new summary definition does not require a new implementation.
  • All 19 analyzed models become comparable as parameter choices within one language, which makes it possible to state precisely where two summaries differ.
  • Without the inference parameterization, summaries can be built in time and space linear in the number of edges; the worst case stays quadratic only when materialized RDF Schema inference is used.
  • The empirical analysis of four large Linked Open Data graphs indicates that vocabulary graphs stay small (about 5 percent of the data graph on average) while inference can add 2 to 20 times more properties and types, supporting the paper's suggestion to apply inference outside the summary.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that its language gives a translation-invariant notion of equivalence between summary models: two models are the same if their FLUID expressions define the same vertex partition, which could be checked mechanically once the encodings are fixed.
  • An extension not in the paper would apply the same equivalence-relation language to property graphs rather than RDF, treating ordinary vertex labels as a special edge or as part of the label parameterization; the schema elements would not need to change.
  • A testable consequence is that the quadratic blow-up from inference is avoidable by evaluating reasoning lazily during schema extraction instead of materializing all inferred triples; the paper discusses inference inside versus outside but not this intermediate option.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces FLUID, a formal language for defining structural graph summaries of RDF graphs. FLUID consists of three simple schema elements (POC, PC, OC), one complex schema element (CSE), six parameterizations (label, set, chaining, direction, inference, instance), and payload elements. The authors claim that all 19 graph summary models surveyed in Section 3 can be expressed in FLUID (Table 3), and that any FLUID-defined summary can be computed by one parameterized algorithm in O(n^2) worst-case time and linear time in typical cases. They provide a complexity analysis (Section 5), an explicit quadratic blow-up example under inference (Example 9), and an empirical study of four large RDF datasets (Section 6) that measures the effect of RDFS inference on graph size.

Significance. If the formal problems identified below are repaired, the paper makes a useful contribution: a single, parameterized framework for exact structural graph summaries, with an expressiveness map over 19 models and a uniform algorithm. The complexity analysis is mostly sound, and the explicit n^2/4-triple example for inference is a concrete worst-case illustration. The paper also ships an open-source implementation, which supports reproducibility. However, the formal expressiveness claim currently rests on two definitions that are not well-formed, and the empirical 'typical running time Θ(n)' claim goes beyond what is actually measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2.6, Definition 14 and Table 3] The relation ρ of related property instances is not well-defined as written. The condition 'there exists s′′∈[s]ρ such that ...' quantifies over the equivalence class of the very relation being defined, with no base case or least-fixed-point construction. The ambiguity is real: on the graph with triples (a,p,x), (b,p,x), (c,q,y), (d,q,y), both the component partition {{a,b},{c,d}} and the universal relation V×V satisfy the stated biconditional. Since Table 3 expresses the Weak Summary, Strong Summary, Typed Weak Summary, and Typed Strong Summary as SE[ρ], the paper's central expressiveness claim over the literature is not established for these four rows. The repair is straightforward — define ρ as the transitive closure of the relation that relates s and s′ when there is a non-rdf:type property p and object o with (s,p,o) and (s′,p,o) (and the analogous target-related condition) — but that construction is not present in the manuscript.
  2. [Section 4.2.2, Definition 9 and Examples 3–4] The set parameterization is internally inconsistent. For SSE∈{PC,POC}, the first disjunct makes any two vertices with at least one outgoing edge equivalent whenever S is nonempty, so Example 4's statement that PCrel|{p1,p2} yields at most four summaries is false: all non-isolated vertices would collapse into a single class. For SSE∈{OC,POC} and S=∅, the second disjunct is vacuously true for pairs where one vertex has no relevant outgoing triple, which can equate vertices with and without types, contradicting Example 3's two-class description. Because Table 3 uses OCtype|∅ and OCtype|VC in the Typed Weak Summary and Typed Strong Summary rows, these rows also lack a precise semantics. The intended notion (an 'overflow' class for vertices with elements outside S, plus ordinary SSE comparison for vertices whose elements all lie in S) needs to be formalized with the empty-set and single-vertex cases handled explicitly.
  3. [Section 6 and Section 1 (contribution III)] The paper's headline empirical claim — 'typical running time of Θ(n)' — is not supported by the experiments reported. Section 6 measures the size of the RDFS vocabulary graph and the number of additional types/properties that inference would add; it does not report wall-clock times for computing any FLUID summary, let alone on graphs with billions of edges. At most, the data support a claim about the growth of the materialized graph under inference. Please either add actual build-time experiments (e.g., for the SSE and CSE cases with and without inference) or revise the abstract and contribution (III) to state the measured quantity precisely.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 1, line 28] The call InfInMap.Put(v, VG.InferOntologyInformation(OUT)) passes OUT, but the loop is over incoming triples IN; this appears to be a typo and should use IN.
  2. [Definition 10] The notation is type-inconsistent: CSE^1 is a 3-tuple of equivalence relations, whereas CSE^k for k≥2 denotes an equivalence relation. The recursion should be stated directly on the induced equivalence relations, as Example 5 does informally.
  3. [Lemma 1] Lemma 1 is asserted without proof; since the subsequent complexity analysis relies on it, a short argument (or a reference to the hash-based memoization) should be supplied.
  4. [Section 5.2.7] The discussion of transitive closure for the instance parameterization is handwavy; a precise statement of the data structure (e.g., union-find or memoized traversal) and its amortized cost is needed to justify the claim that the time complexity does not increase.
  5. [Section 6.4] There is a typo in 'we compared the size of one graph summary with and and without inference'; the duplicated 'and' should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Definition 14's related-property-instances ρ is defined in terms of its own equivalence classes, and four Table 3 encodings inherit the circularity.

  1. self definitional [Definition 14, Section 4.2.6; Table 3 rows for Weak Summary, Strong Summary, Typed Weak Summary, Typed Strong Summary]
    "For Schema Elements using outgoing properties, two vertices s and s′ are equivalent according to the equivalence relation ρ, iff there exists vertex s′′∈ [s]ρ such that there are triples (s′′,p,o)∈G and (s′,p,o)∈G with p≠ rdf:type, or, similarly for some s′′′∈ [s′]ρ."

    The right-hand side quantifies over [s]ρ and [s′]ρ, the equivalence classes of the very relation ρ being defined. No least-fixed-point, inductive, or transitive-closure construction is supplied, so the sentence is not a well-founded definition; it is an impredicative condition admitting multiple fixed points. For example, on triples (a,p,x), (b,p,x), (c,q,y), (d,q,y), both the partition {{a,b},{c,d}} and the universal relation V×V satisfy the stated biconditional. Since Table 3 encodes Goasdoué et al.'s Weak Summary, Strong Summary, Typed Weak Summary, and Typed Strong Summary using i-PCrel[ρ], b-PCrel[ρ], and related expressions, four of the 19 claimed expressiveness rows inherit this circular, ill-defined relation.

full rationale

The only load-bearing circular step I can exhibit is Definition 14's related-property-instances relation ρ. The paper's central claim that FLUID expresses all 19 surveyed graph summary models depends on Table 3, and four rows of that table use ρ; because ρ is not well-defined as written, those rows do not have a determinate semantics. This is a self-definitional circularity rather than a fitted-input or self-citation issue. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions: the O(n^2) worst-case bound follows from the inference blow-up example and hash-based scanning analysis, and the empirical Θ(n) claim is an experimental observation on four datasets, not a quantity derived from the FLUID definitions. Self-citations to [3] for SameAs instances and to [5] for bounded predicate counts support a standard path-equivalence notion and an empirical hypothesis; neither forces the paper's conclusion. The feature analysis and expressiveness enumeration are argued by Table 1 and direct encodings in Table 3, which are independent content apart from the ρ defect. I set the score to 6 rather than higher because the circularity affects a subset of the encodings and is repairable by an explicit transitive-closure definition, but it is central enough that the claimed completeness over the literature is not established as written.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. Its claims rest on standard math (equivalence relations, transitive closure), domain assumptions about RDF/RDFS, computational assumptions about hash maps, and an empirical assumption that per-triple inference cost t is typically bounded. The main definitional risk is the circularity of ρ in Definition 14 and the erroneous disjunct in Definition 9.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Equivalence relations, transitive closure, and the correspondence between equivalence relations and partitions
    FLUID's summaries are defined as equivalence relations over vertices (Definition 1); intersection and extended union rely on standard results.
  • domain assumption RDF graph model: triples (s,p,o), IRIs, blank nodes, literals, and skolemization of blank nodes
    The paper treats all vertex kinds uniformly and assumes blank nodes can be skolemized to IRIs (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption W3C RDFS entailment rules define the inference parameterization
    The inference parameterization op(G,VG_RDFS) uses RDFS reasoning (Section 4.2.5, Definition 13).
  • domain assumption Hash maps provide amortized constant-time access and hashes are long enough to avoid collisions
    The linear-time complexity analysis (Sections 5.1 and 5.2) assumes this; the authors rely on Goasdoué et al.'s hypothesis (⋆) and their own prior evidence, not a proof.
  • domain assumption The number t of additional triples inferred per input triple is typically constant on real datasets
    The 'typical Θ(n)' claim requires t = O(1); Section 6 reports growth factors for properties and types per dataset, which only indirectly support this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Related property instances ρ are a well-defined equivalence relation
    Definition 14 defines ρ circularly by referencing its own equivalence classes; no fixed-point construction is given, yet Table 3 depends on [ρ] for the Goasdoué et al. summaries.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FLUID: A Common Model for Semantic Structural Graph Summaries Based on Equivalence Relations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULSNDRAO

@misc{pith2026190801528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FLUID: A Common Model for Semantic Structural Graph Summaries Based on Equivalence Relations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULSNDRAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01528}
}
abstract

Summarization is a widespread method for handling very large graphs. The task of structural graph summarization is to compute a concise but meaningful synopsis of the key structural information of a graph. As summaries may be used for many different purposes, there is no single concept or model of graph summaries. We have studied existing structural graph summaries for large-scale (semantic) graphs. Despite their different concepts and purposes, we found commonalities in the graph structures they capture. We use these commonalities to provide for the first time a formally defined common model, FLUID (FLexible graph sUmmarIes for Data graphs), that allows us to flexibly define structural graph summaries. FLUID allows graph summaries to be quickly defined, adapted, and compared for different purposes and datasets. To this end, FLUID provides features of structural summarization based on equivalence relations such as distinction of types and properties, direction of edges, bisimulation, and inference. We conduct a detailed complexity analysis of the features provided by FLUID. We show that graph summaries defined with FLUID can be computed in the worst case in time $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ w.r.t. $n$, the number of edges in the data graph. An empirical analysis of large-scale web graphs with billions of edges indicates a typical running time of $\Theta(n)$. Based on the formal FLUID model, one can quickly define and modify various structural graph summaries from the literature and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01528 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simple RDF graph to demonstrate the relation between a set of triples (left) and its visualization as a graph (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example data graph (a) and the vertex summaries in the graph summary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Following the equivalence relation CSE-2 defined in Example 2, the two vertex summaries identified by the primary vertices r1 and r2 summarize the vertices v1 and v2 from Figure 2a, respectively. To represent the complex schema structure of v1 in this vertex summary, we use a secondary vertex s1 in addition to the primary vertex r1 (see Section 2.2). other words, it is identical to the simple schema element POC. Sim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Following the b-PC equivalence relation, the two vertex summaries identified by the primary vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simple example of a RDFS vocabulary graph. Each vertex represents either a type or a property. To infer implicit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sample data graph containing three vertices [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The vertex summary identified by the primary vertex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allemang and J

    D. Allemang and J. A. Hendler. Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist - Effective Modeling in RDFS and OWL, Second Edition. Morgan Kaufmann, 2011. ISBN 978-0-12-385965-5. URL http:/ /www.elsevierdirect.com/product.jsp? isbn=9780123859655

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Benedetti, S

    F. Benedetti, S. Bergamaschi, and L. Po. Exposing the underlying schema of LOD sources. In Joint IEEE/WIC/ACM WI and IAT, pages 301–304. IEEE Computer Society, 2015. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2015.99

    work page doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2015.99 2015

  3. [3]

    Blume and A

    T. Blume and A. Scherp. Towards flexible indices for distributed graph data: The formal schema-level index model FLuID. In 30th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases , CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pages 23–28. CEUR-WS.org, 2018. URL https:/ /dbs.cs.uni-duesseldorf.de/gvdb2018/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/GvDB2018paper 4.pdf. 6https:/ /github.com/t-blume/fluid...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Blume and A

    T. Blume and A. Scherp. Indexing data on the web: A comparison of schema-level indices for data search. In Database and Expert Systems Applications - 31st International Conference, DEXA 2020 , pages 277–286, 2020. URL https:/ /doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-59051-2 18

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-59051-2 2020

  5. [5]

    Blume, D

    T. Blume, D. Richerby, and A. Scherp. Incremental and parallel computation of structural graph summaries for evolving graphs. In 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) . ACM, 2020. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/3340531.3411878

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Graph Summarization

    A. Bonifati, S. Dumbrava, and H. Kondylakis. Graph summarization. CoRR, abs/2004.14794, 2020. URL https:/ /arxiv. org/abs/2004.14794

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Brickley and R

    D. Brickley and R. Guha. RDF Schema 1.1. https:/ /www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-rdf-schema-20140225/, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Campinas, T

    S. Campinas, T. Perry, D. Ceccarelli, R. Delbru, and G. Tummarello. Introducing RDF graph summary with application to assisted SPARQL formulation. In 23rd International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, DEXA 2012, pages 261–266. IEEE Computer Society, 2012. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1109/DEXA.2012.38

    work page doi:10.1109/dexa.2012.38 2012

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    ˇCebiri´ c, F

    ˇS. ˇCebiri´ c, F. Goasdou´ e, and I. Manolescu. A framework for efficient representative summarization of RDF graphs. In International Semantic Web Conference (Posters, Demos & Industry Tracks) , volume 1963 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2017. URL http:/ /ceur-ws.o...

    1963

  2. [10]

    ˇCebiri´ c, F

    ˇS. ˇCebiri´ c, F. Goasdou´ e, H. Kondylakis, D. Kotzinos, I. Manolescu, G. Troullinou, and M. Zneika. Summarizing semantic graphs: a survey. VLDB J., 28(3):295–327, 2019. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/s00778-018-0528-3

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Ciglan, K

    M. Ciglan, K. Nørv˚ ag, and L. Hluch´ y. The semsets model for ad-hoc semantic list search. In Proceedings of the 21st World Wide Web Conference 2012, WWW 2012 , pages 131–140, 2012. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/2187836.2187855

    2012

  4. [12]

    M. P. Consens, V. Fionda, S. Khatchadourian, and G. Pirr` o. S+EPPs: Construct and explore bisimulation summaries, plus optimize navigational queries; all on existing SPARQL systems. PVLDB, 8(12):2028–2031, 2015. URL http:/ /www. vldb.org/pvldb/vol8/p2028-consens.pdf

    2015

  5. [13]

    Cyganiak, D

    R. Cyganiak, D. Wood, and M. Lanthaler. RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax. http:/ /www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC- rdf11-concepts-20140225, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    L. Ding, J. Shinavier, Z. Shangguan, and D. L. McGuinness. SameAs networks and beyond: Analyzing deployment status and implications of owl:sameAs in Linked Data. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2010 - 9th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2010, pages 145–160. Springer, 20...

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    D¨ urst and M

    M. D¨ urst and M. Suignard. RFC 3987 internationalized resource identifiers (IRIs). https:/ /www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Equivalence relation, 2014

    European Mathematical Society. Equivalence relation, 2014. URL http:/ /www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title= Equivalence relation&oldid=35990

    2014

  9. [17]

    W. Fan, J. Li, J. Luo, Z. Tan, X. Wang, and Y. Wu. Incremental graph pattern matching. InACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, SIGMOD 2011 , pages 925–936. ACM, 2011. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/1989323. 1989420

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Goasdou´ e, P

    F. Goasdou´ e, P. Guzewicz, and I. Manolescu. RDF graph summarization for first-sight structure discovery. VLDB J., 29 (5):1191–1218, 2020. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/s00778-020-00611-y

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Gottron, A

    T. Gottron, A. Scherp, B. Krayer, and A. Peters. LODatio: using a schema-level index to support users in finding relevant sources of linked data. In 7th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, K-CAP 2013 , pages 105–108. ACM, 2013. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/2479832.2479841

    2013

  12. [20]

    Gottron, M

    T. Gottron, M. Knauf, and A. Scherp. Analysis of schema structures in the linked open data graph based on unique subject uris, pay-level domains, and vocabulary usage. Distributed Parallel Databases , 33(4):515–553, 2015. URL https: / /doi.org/10.1007/s10619-014-7143-0

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Harth, J

    A. Harth, J. Umbrich, A. Hogan, and S. Decker. YARS2: A federated repository for querying graph structured data from the web. In The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007 , volume 4825 of Lecture Notes...

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Herrera, A

    J. Herrera, A. Hogan, and T. K¨ afer. BTC-2019: the 2019 billion triple challenge dataset. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2019 - 18th International Semantic Web Conference , pages 163–180, 2019. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-30796-7 11

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Hogan, E

    A. Hogan, E. Blomqvist, M. Cochez, C. d’Amato, G. de Melo, C. Gutierrez, J. E. L. Gayo, S. Kirrane, S. Neumaier, A. Polleres, R. Navigli, A. N. Ngomo, S. M. Rashid, A. Rula, L. Schmelzeisen, J. F. Sequeda, S. Staab, and A. Zimmermann. Knowledge graphs. CoRR, abs/2003.02320, 20...

    2003 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K¨ afer, A

    T. K¨ afer, A. Abdelrahman, J. Umbrich, P. O’Byrne, and A. Hogan. Observing linked data dynamics. In The Semantic Web: Semantics and Big Data, 10th International Conference, ESWC 2013 , volume 7882 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 213–227. Springer, 2013. URL https:...

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Kaushik, P

    R. Kaushik, P. Shenoy, P. Bohannon, and E. Gudes. Exploiting local similarity for indexing paths in graph-structured data. In 18th International Conference on Data Engineering , pages 129–140. IEEE Computer Society, 2002. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2002.994703

    2002

  18. [26]

    A. Khan, S. S. Bhowmick, and F. Bonchi. Summarizing static and dynamic big graphs. VLDB Endowment , 10(12): 1981–1984, 2017. URL http:/ /www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol10/p1981-khan.pdf

    1981

  19. [27]

    Konrath, T

    M. Konrath, T. Gottron, S. Staab, and A. Scherp. SchemEX - efficient construction of a data catalogue by stream-based indexing of linked data. J. Web Semant. , 16:52–58, 2012. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.06.002

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Liebig, V

    T. Liebig, V. Vialard, M. Opitz, and S. Metzl. Graphscale: Adding expressive reasoning to semantic data stores. In ISWC 2015 Posters & Demonstrations Track co-located with the 14th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) , volume 1486 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS...

    2015

  21. [29]

    Y. Liu, T. Safavi, A. Dighe, and D. Koutra. Graph summarization methods and applications: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 51(3):62:1–62:34, 2018. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/3186727

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    D. L. McGuinness and F. van Harmelen. OWL Web Ontology Language. https:/ /www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl- features-20040210/, 2014

    2004

  23. [31]

    Mihindukulasooriya, M

    N. Mihindukulasooriya, M. Poveda-Villal´ on, R. Garc´ ıa-Castro, and A. G´ omez-P´ erez. Loupe - an online tool for inspecting datasets in the linked data cloud. In International Semantic Web Conference (Posters & Demos) , volume 1486 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org,...

    2015

  24. [32]

    Milo and D

    T. Milo and D. Suciu. Index structures for path expressions. In C. Beeri and P. Buneman, editors, Database Theory - ICDT ’99, 7th International Conference , volume 1540 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 277–295. Springer,

  25. [33]

    Neumann and G

    T. Neumann and G. Moerkotte. Characteristic sets: Accurate cardinality estimation for RDF queries with multiple joins. In 27th International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE 2011 , pages 984–994. IEEE, 2011. URL https: / /doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2011.5767868

    2011

  26. [34]

    R. O’Keefe. How to hash a set. 2017. URL https:/ /www.preprints.org/manuscript/201710.0192

    2017

  27. [35]

    Pietriga, H

    E. Pietriga, H. G¨ oz¨ ukan, C. Appert, M. Destandau, S. Cebiric, F. Goasdou´ e, and I. Manolescu. Browsing linked data catalogs with lodatlas. In The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference , pages 137–153,

    2018

  28. [36]

    C. Qun, A. Lim, and K. W. Ong. D(k)-index: An adaptive structural summary for graph-structured data. In ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data , pages 134–144. ACM, 2003. URL https:/ /doi.org/10. 1145/872757.872776

    2003

  29. [37]

    Rietveld, W

    L. Rietveld, W. Beek, R. Hoekstra, and S. Schlobach. Meta-data for a lot of LOD. Semantic Web, 8(6):1067–1080, 2017. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.3233/SW-170256

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Sangiorgi

    D. Sangiorgi. On the origins of bisimulation and coinduction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 31(4):15:1–15:41, 2009. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1145/1516507.1516510

    2009

  31. [39]

    Schaible, T

    J. Schaible, T. Gottron, and A. Scherp. TermPicker: Enabling the reuse of vocabulary terms by exploiting data from the Linked Open Data cloud. In he Semantic Web. Latest Advances and New Domains - 13th International Conference, ESWC 2016, volume 9678 of Lecture Notes in Comput...

    2016

  32. [40]

    Sch¨ atzle, A

    A. Sch¨ atzle, A. Neu, G. Lausen, and M. Przyjaciel-Zablocki. Large-scale bisimulation of RDF graphs. In Fifth Workshop on Semantic Web Information Management, SWIM@SIGMOD Conference 2013 , pages 1:1–1:8. ACM, 2013. URL https: / /doi.org/10.1145/2484712.2484713

    2013

  33. [41]

    Spahiu, R

    B. Spahiu, R. Porrini, M. Palmonari, A. Rula, and A. Maurino. ABSTAT: ontology-driven linked data summaries with pattern minimalization. In The Semantic Web - ESWC 2016 Satellite Event, Revised Selected Papers , volume 9989 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 381–395,...

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    R. E. Tarjan and J. van Leeuwen. Worst-case analysis of set union algorithms. J. ACM , 31(2):245–281, 1984. URL http:/ /doi.acm.org/10.1145/62.2160

    1984 doi

  35. [43]

    T. Tran, G. Ladwig, and S. Rudolph. Managing structured and semistructured RDF data using structure indexes. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. , 25(9):2076–2089, 2013. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2012.134

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    V¨ olker and M

    J. V¨ olker and M. Niepert. Statistical schema induction. InThe Semantic Web: Research and Applications - 8th Extended Semantic Web Conference, ESWC 2011 , pages 124–138, 2011. URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21034-1 9

    2011 doi

  37. [45]

    Zimmermann

    A. Zimmermann. RDF 1.1: On Semantics of RDF Datasets. https:/ /www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-rdf11-datasets- 20140225/, 2014. 29

    2014

  38. [1999]

    URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49257-7 18

    doi

  39. [2018]

    URL https:/ /doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6 9

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.