skip to main content
10.1145/2814864.2814873acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessemanticsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Machine-interpretable dataset and service descriptions for heterogeneous data access and retrieval

Published:16 September 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

The rdf data model allows the description of domain-level knowledge that is understandable by both humans and machines. rdf data can be derived from different source formats and diverse access points, ranging from databases or files in csv format to data retrieved from Web apis in json, Web Services in xml or any other speciality formats. To this end, machine-interpretable mapping languages, such as rml, were introduced to uniformly define how data in multiple heterogeneous sources is mapped to the rdf data model, independently of their original format. However, the way in which this data is accessed and retrieved still remains hard-coded, as corresponding descriptions are often not available or not taken into account. In this paper, we introduce an approach that takes advantage of widely-accepted vocabularies, originally used to advertise services or datasets, such as Hydra or dcat, to define how to access Web-based or other data sources. Consequently, the generation of rdf representations is facilitated and further automated, while the machine-interpretable descriptions of the connectivity to the original data remain independent and interoperable, offering a granular solution for accessing and mapping data.

References

  1. K. Alexander, R. Cyganiak, M. Hausenblas, and J. Zhao. Describing Linked Datasets with the VoID Vocabulary. W3C Interest Group Note, Mar. 2011. http://www.w3.org/TR/void/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. S. Auer, S. Dietzold, J. Lehmann, S. Hellmann, and D. Aumueller. Triplify: Light-weight Linked Data Publication from Relational Databases. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '09. ACM, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila. The Semantic Web. Scientific American, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. E. Christensen, F. Curbera, G. Meredith, and S. Weerawarana. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) 1.1. W3C Note, Mar. 2001. http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. R. Cyganiak. Tarql -- SPARQL for Tables: Turn CSV into RDF using SPARQL syntax. Technical report, Jan. 2015. http://tarql.github.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. R. Cyganiak, C. Bizer, J. Garbers, O. Maresch, and C. Becker. The D2RQ Mapping Language. Technical report, Mar. 2012. http://d2rq.org/d2rq-language.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Das, S. Sundara, and R. Cyganiak. R2RML: RDB to RDF Mapping Language. Working Group Recommendation, W3C, Sept. 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. J. de Bruijn, C. Bussler, J. Domingue, D. Fensel, M. Hepp, U. Keller, M. Kifer, B. KÃűnig-Ries, J. Kopecky, R. Lara, H. Lausen, E. Oren, A. Polleres, D. Roman, J. Scicluna, and M. Stollberg. Web Service Modeling Ontology (WSMO). W3C Member Submission, June 2005. http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSMO/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. de Bruijn, D. Fensel, U. Keller, M. Kifer, H. Lausen, R. Krummenacher, A. Polleres, and L. Predoiu. Web Service Modeling Language (WSML). W3C Member Submission, June 2005. http://www.w3.org/Submission/WSML/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Dimou, M. Vander Sande, P. Colpaert, R. Verborgh, E. Mannens, and R. Van de Walle. RML: A Generic Language for Integrated RDF Mappings of Heterogeneous Data. In Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. M. Hert, G. Reif, and H. C. Gall. A comparison of RDB-to-RDF mapping languages. I-Semantics '11. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Kopecký. Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0: RDF Mapping. W3C Working Group Note, June 2007. http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl20-rdf/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Kopecký, K. Gomadam, and T. Vitvar. hrests: An HTML Microformat for Describing RESTful Web Services. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 01. IEEE Computer Society, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Kopecký, T. Vitvar, C. Bournez, and J. Farrell. SAWSDL: Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. IEEE Internet Computing, 11, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. A. Langegger and W. Wöß. XLWrap -- Querying and Integrating Arbitrary Spreadsheets with SPARQL. In Proceedings of 8th ISWC. Springer, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. M. Lanthaler. Hydra Core Vocabulary. Unofficial Draft, June 2014. http://www.hydra-cg.com/spec/latest/core/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. R. Lara, D. Roman, A. Polleres, and D. Fensel. A Conceptual Comparison of WSMO and OWL-S. In Web Services, volume 3250 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. F. Maali and J. Erickson. Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT). W3C Recommendation, Jan. 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. M. Maleshkova, J. Kopecký, and C. Pedrinaci. Adapting SAWSDL for Semantic Annotations of RESTful Services. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2009 Workshops, volume 5872 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. D. Martin, M. Burstein, J. Hobbs, O. Lassila, D. McDermott, S. McIlraith, S. Narayanan, M. Paolucci, B. Parsia, T. Payne, E. Sirin, N. Srinivasan, and K. Sycara. OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission, Nov. 2004. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. M. J. O'Connor, C. Halaschek-Wiener, and M. A. Musen. Mapping Master: a flexible approach for mapping spreadsheets to OWL. Proceedings of 9th ISWC, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. C. Stadler, J. Unbehauen, P. Westphal, M. Ahmed Sherif, and J. Lehmann. Simplified RDB2RDF Mapping. In Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. J. Tennison, G. Kellogg, and I. Herman. Model for Tabular Data and Metadata on the Web. W3C Working Draft, Apr. 2015. http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-tabular-data-model-20150416/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. G. Todd Williams. SPARQL 1.1 Service Description. W3C Recommendation, Mar. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-service-description/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. T. Vitvar, J. Kopecký, J. Viskova, and D. Fensel. WSMO-Lite Annotations for Web Services. In The Semantic Web: Research and Applications, volume 5021 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Machine-interpretable dataset and service descriptions for heterogeneous data access and retrieval

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Other conferences
            SEMANTICS '15: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Semantic Systems
            September 2015
            220 pages
            ISBN:9781450334624
            DOI:10.1145/2814864

            Copyright © 2015 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 16 September 2015

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            SEMANTICS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate22of97submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate40of182submissions,22%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader