Modeling and publishing Linked Open Data (LOD) involves the choice of which vocabulary to use. This choice is far from trivial and poses a challenge to a Linked Data engineer. It covers the search for appropriate vocabulary terms, making decisions regarding the number of vocabularies to consider in the design process, as well as the way of selecting and combining vocabularies. Until today, there is no study that investigates the different strategies of reusing vocabularies for LOD modeling and publishing. In this paper, we present the results of a survey with 79 participants that examines the most preferred vocabulary reuse strategies of LOD modeling. Participants of our survey are LOD publishers and practitioners. Their task was to assess different vocabulary reuse strategies and explain their ranking decision. We found significant differences between the modeling strategies that range from reusing popular vocabularies, minimizing the number of vocabularies, and staying within one domain vocabulary. A very interesting insight is that the popularity in the meaning of how frequent a vocabulary is used in a data source is more important than how often individual classes and properties arernused in the LOD cloud. Overall, the results of this survey help in understanding the strategies how data engineers reuse vocabularies, and theyrnmay also be used to develop future vocabulary engineering tools.

This paper presents a method for the evolution of SHI ABoxes which is based on a compilation technique of the knowledge base. For this the ABox is regarded as an interpretation of the TBox which is close to a model. It is shown, that the ABox can be used for a semantically guided transformation resulting in an equisatisfiable knowledge base. We use the result of this transformation to effciently delete assertions from the ABox. Furthermore, insertion of assertions as well as repair of inconsistent ABoxes is addressed. For the computation of the necessary actions for deletion, insertion and repair, the E-KRHyper theorem prover is used.

When publishing graph data on the web such as vocabulariesrnusing RDF(S) or OWL, one has only limited means to verify the authenticity and integrity of the graph data. Today's approaches require a high signature overhead and do not allow for an iterative signing of graph data. This paper presents a formally defined framework for signing arbitrary graph data provided in RDF(S), Named Graphs, or OWL. Our framework supports signing graph data at different levels of granularity: minimum self-contained graphs (MSG), sets of MSGs, and entire graphs. It supports for an iterative signing of graph data, e. g., when different parties provide different parts of a common graph, and allows for signing multiple graphs. Both can be done with a constant, low overhead for the signature graph, even when iteratively signing graph data.

E-KRHyper is a versatile theorem prover and model generator for firstorder logic that natively supports equality. Inequality of constants, however, has to be given by explicitly adding facts. As the amount of these facts grows quadratically in the number of these distinct constants, the knowledge base is blown up. This makes it harder for a human reader to focus on the actual problem, and impairs the reasoning process. We extend E-Hyper- underlying E-KRhyper tableau calculus to avoid this blow-up by implementing a native handling for inequality of constants. This is done by introducing the unique name assumption for a subset of the constants (the so called distinct object identifiers). The obtained calculus is shown to be sound and complete and is implemented into the E-KRHyper system. Synthetic benchmarks, situated in the theory of arrays, are used to back up the benefits of the new calculus.

In this paper, we demonstrate by means of two examples how to work with probability propagation nets (PPNs). The fiirst, which comes from the book by Peng and Reggia [1], is a small example of medical diagnosis. The second one comes from [2]. It is an example of operational risk and is to show how the evidence flow in PPNs gives hints to reduce high losses. In terms of Bayesian networks, both examples contain cycles which are resolved by the conditioning technique [3].