DOCSLIB.ORG

RDF Presentation and Correct Content Conveyance for Legacy Services and the Web of Things

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RDF Presentation and Correct Content Conveyance for Legacy Services and the Web of Things RDF Presentation and Correct Content Conveyance for Legacy Services and the Web of Things Maxime Lefrançois Mines Saint-Étienne, Univ Lyon, Univ Jean Monnet, IOGS, CNRS, UMR 5516, LHC, Institut Henri Fayol F - 42023, Saint-Étienne, France [email protected] ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION RDF aims at being the universal abstract data model for structured The Web today sees companies and web services exchanging data data on the Web. However, the vast majority of web services con- in various and multiple formats. XML (not RDF/XML) is still widely sume and expose non-RDF data, and it is unlikely that all these used, CSV is commonly used on Open data portals, APIs often services be converted to RDF one day. This is especially true for sen- use JSON. Constrained devices on the Web of Things [15, 16, 34] sors and other devices in the Web of Things, as most RDF formats tend to use concise formats, potentially binary such as EXI [29] or are verbose while constrained devices prefer to consume and ex- CBOR [5]. This raises the problem of semantic interoperability at pose data in concise formats. In this paper, we propose an approach the data level, i.e., how services and devices can get the meaning to make these services and things reach semantic interoperability, of the messages they exchange. RDF has the potential of being the while letting them the freedom to use their preferred formats. Our universal abstract data model for structured data on the Web, which approach is rooted in the Web’s architectural principles and the would be a first step towards enabling semantic interoperability on linked data principles, and relies on the definition of RDF presenta- the Web. Yet, RDF data formats (RDF/XML, Turtle, JSON-LD) will tions, which describe the link between RDF graphs and their rep- probably never be the only formats used on the Web. However, the resentations. We introduce the RDF Presentation ontology (RDFP) RDF data model can still be of use as lingua franca for semantic that can be used to model inputs and outputs of procedures of the interoperability. new Semantic Sensor Network ontology (SOSA/SSN), and input- In this paper we are investigating the issue of lowering the Data and outputData of interaction patterns of things in the W3C required effort for different services and devices to reach seman- WoT Thing Description ontology. We then propose practical solu- tic interoperability at the data level using Semantic Web models, tions for web agents to be able to discover how a message content without being too prescriptive on the format they should use. In can be interpreted as RDF, generated from RDF, or validated, with particular, we want to avoid complex compromises such as trying different Web interaction protocols. to stick to JSON-LD, and maintain an ontology, a JSON-LD context, and a JSON schema in parallel. We also want to avoid the need for CCS CONCEPTS using RDF syntaxes, however compact they may be such HDTQ or ERI [11]. • Information systems → World Wide Web; Studying semantic interoperability at the data level on the Web obviously involves some modeling of the communication between KEYWORDS heterogeneous agents on the Web. As a first approximation, let us Semantic Interoperability, RDF, RDF Presentation, RDF Lifting, RDF describe such communication as follows: a sender wants to send lowering, RDF validation some content (e.g., the state of a resource) to a receiver. It first gen- erates a representation of that content, transmits the so-formed ACM Reference Format: message via the Web to the receiver, that then decodes it and gets Maxime Lefrançois. 2018. RDF Presentation and Correct Content Con- some understanding of the original content. For this decoded mes- veyance for Legacy Services and the Web of Things. In 8th International sage to be equivalent to the original content, (1) all of the essential Conference on the Internet of Things (IoT 2018) (IOT ’18), October 15–18, characteristics of the content must be encoded in the message, (2) 2018, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 8 pages. https: the encoding and the decoding phase must be symmetric, and (3) //doi.org/10.1145/3277593.3277618 the message must not be altered in the transmission medium which is the Web. We name this Correct Content Conveyance (C3). We commit ourselves to develop an approach that conforms to, Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or and leverages, the Web’s architectural principles and the linked classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed data principles. As Web’s foundations can be considered domain 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 knowledge like any other, we propose to adopt a rigorous knowl- author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or edge engineering methodology to answer our research question. republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. We therefore apply the following steps, according to which this IOT ’18, October 15–18, 2018, Santa Barbara, CA, USA paper is structured. © 2018 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to Associa- Step 1, analyze the domain. Section 2 formalizes the con- tion for Computing Machinery. ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6564-2/18/10...$15.00 cepts of RDF Presentation, Lifting, Lowering, and Validation, https://doi.org/10.1145/3277593.3277618 which are used in the rest of this paper. IOT ’18, October 15–18, 2018, Santa Barbara, CA, USA Maxime Lefrançois Step 2, develop scenarios. Section 3 depicts three scenarios stream into an RDF graph, and the process that consists of using where agents communicate on the Web, all of which involve an RDF presentation to encode an RDF graph into a typed octet some adaptation of one or the other party to enable Correct stream, respectively.1 We formalize these terms as follows. Content Conveyance. Definition 2.2 (Lifting Rule). R" : S!G is a lifting rule for p if Step 3, extract competency questions. Section 4 lists com- petency questions that we derive from the scenario to define ¹ д;sº»hд;si 2 p ) R"¹sº = д¼ the scope of the ontology. 8 Definition 2.3 (Lowering Rule). R# : G!S is a lowering rule for Step 5, develop the ontology. Section 5 provides ontolog- p if ical representation for the core concepts formally defined in Step 1, that gravitate around the concept of RDF presentation. ¹ д 2 Gº ¹ s 2 Sº»hд;si 2 p¼ ) 8 9 The result of this step is the RDF Presentation (RDFP) ontol- # ¹ s0 2 Sº»hд;s0i 2 p and R ¹дº = s0¼ ogy, along with simple alignments to the Open Geospatial 9 Consortium (OGC) and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Definition 2.4 (Valid RDF Graph). Let p 2 P be an RDF presenta- Semantic Sensor Network ontology (SOSA/SSN) [17], and to tion. An RDF graph д is valid for p iff the W3C Thing Description ontology (TD) [20] that show s 2 S s.t. hд;si 2 p how it can be used in practice. RDFP is the main contribution 9 of this paper, and is used in the SOSA/SSN specification. The validation rule of p is an application from G to ftrue; f alseg, Step 6, qualitatively validate the ontology by showing that associates each graph д 2 G with the value true if and only if how it answers the competency questions and enable д is valid for p. the scenarios. This step is partly led throughout Section 5, Definition 2.5 (Valid Representation). A typed octet stream s is a and Section 6 shows how the RDF Presentation ontology and valid representation for p iff the concepts it defines can be used with some of the Web interaction protocols to answer the complementary set of д 2 G s.t. hд;si 2 p 9 competency questions from Section 4, and enable scenarios The representation validation rule of p is the application of S to from Section 3. Namely, how can a web agent discover the ftrue; f alseg, that associates each typed octet stream s 2 S with information about the RDF presentation that is used by its the value true if and only if s is a valid representation for p. interlocutor, either directly, or indirectly. As illustrated on Figure 1, many formalisms exist to specify lift- 2 PARTIAL FORMALIZATION OF THE ing rules. We can cite the SPARQL-Generate rules [24, 25], the RML DOMAIN mapping language [10], XSPARQL rules [1], the CSV metadata [33] and GRDDL [7].2 Lowering rules can be specified using STTL [8] In this section, we formalize the concept of RDF presentation, in or XSPARQL [1]. Then, the SPIN formalisms [22], Shape expres- accordance with the definitions from [18], [28] and [9], that define sions [14, 27], and W3C SHACL, can be used to define validation the fundamental principles of the Web and of the Web of Data. rules for RDF graphs. As for formalisms that can be used to define We also propose definitions for three additional concepts: RDF representation validation rules, every XML-based Internet media presentation, RDF lifting, and RDF lowering. Figure 1 illustrates a types can be validated using XML Schema, while JSON Schema can specific RDF Presentation, and lists some of the existing formalisms validate those based on JSON.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing Rdfa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing
    RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing A collection of attributes and processing rules for extending XHTML to support RDF W3C Recommendation 14 October 2008 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014 Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/PR-rdfa-syntax-20080904 Diff from previous version: rdfa-syntax-diff.html Editors: Ben Adida, Creative Commons [email protected] Mark Birbeck, webBackplane [email protected] Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. [email protected] Steven Pemberton, CWI Please refer to the errata for this document, which may include some normative corrections. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PostScript version, PDF version, ZIP archive, and Gzip’d TAR archive. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2008 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML. These documents contain significant amounts of structured data, which is largely unavailable to tools and applications. When publishers can express this data more completely, and when tools can read it, a new world of user functionality becomes available, letting users transfer structured data between applications and web sites, and allowing browsing applications to improve the user experience: an event on a web page can be directly imported - 1 - How to Read this Document RDFa in XHTML: Syntax and Processing into a user’s desktop calendar; a license on a document can be detected so that users can be informed of their rights automatically; a photo’s creator, camera setting information, resolution, location and topic can be published as easily as the original photo itself, enabling structured search and sharing.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Between Digital Identity Ontologies Through SISM
    Mapping between Digital Identity Ontologies through SISM Matthew Rowe The OAK Group, Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 211 Portobello Street, Sheffield S1 4DP, UK [email protected] Abstract. Various ontologies are available defining the semantics of dig- ital identity information. Due to the rise in use of lowercase semantics, such ontologies are now used to add metadata to digital identity informa- tion within web pages. However concepts exist in these ontologies which are related and must be mapped together in order to enhance machine- readability of identity information on the web. This paper presents the Social identity Schema Mapping (SISM) vocabulary which contains a set of mappings between related concepts in distinct digital identity ontolo- gies using OWL and SKOS mapping constructs. Key words: Semantic Web, Social Web, SKOS, OWL, FOAF, SIOC, PIMO, NCO, Microformats 1 Introduction The semantic web provides a web of machine-readable data. Ontologies form a vital component of the semantic web by providing conceptualisations of domains of knowledge which can then be used to provide a common understanding of some domain. A basic ontology contains a vocabulary of concepts and definitions of the relationships between those concepts. An agent reading a concept from an ontology can look up the concept and discover its properties and characteristics, therefore interpreting how it fits into that particular domain. Due to the great number of ontologies it is common for related concepts to be defined in separate ontologies, these concepts must be identified and mapped together. Web technologies such as Microformats, eRDF and RDFa have allowed web developers to encode lowercase semantics within XHTML pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Linked Data Schemata: Fixing Unsound Foundations
    Linked data schemata: fixing unsound foundations. Kevin Feeney, Gavin Mendel Gleason, Rob Brennan Knowledge and Data Engineering Group & ADAPT Centre, School of Computer Science & Statistics, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Abstract. This paper describes an analysis, and the tools and methods used to produce it, of the practical and logical implications of unifying common linked data vocabularies into a single logical model. In order to support any type of reasoning or even just simple type-checking, the vocabularies that are referenced by linked data statements need to be unified into a complete model wherever they reference or reuse terms that have been defined in other linked data vocabularies. Strong interdependencies between vocabularies are common and a large number of logical and practical problems make this unification inconsistent and messy. However, the situation is far from hopeless. We identify a minimal set of necessary fixes that can be carried out to make a large number of widely-deployed vocabularies mutually compatible, and a set of wider-ranging recommendations for linked data ontology design best practice to help alleviate the problem in future. Finally we make some suggestions for improving OWL’s support for distributed authoring and ontology reuse in the wild. Keywords: Linked Data, Reasoning, Data Quality 1. Introduction One of the central tenets of the Linked Data movement is the reuse of terms from existing well- known vocabularies [Bizer09] when developing new schemata or datasets. The semantic web infrastructure, and the RDF, RDFS and OWL languages, support this with their inherently distributed and modular nature. In practice, through vocabulary reuse, linked data schemata adopt knowledge models that are based on multiple, independently devised ontologies that often exhibit varying definitional semantics [Hogan12].
    [Show full text]
  • OGC Testbed-14: Semantically Enabled Aviation Data Models Engineering Report
    OGC Testbed-14 Semantically Enabled Aviation Data Models Engineering Report Table of Contents 1. Summary . 4 1.1. Requirements & Research Motivation . 4 1.2. Prior-After Comparison. 4 1.3. Recommendations for Future Work . 5 1.4. What does this ER mean for the Working Group and OGC in general . 6 1.5. Document contributor contact points . 6 1.6. Foreword . 6 2. References . 8 3. Terms and definitions . 9 3.1. Semantics . 9 3.2. Service Description. 9 3.3. Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) . 9 3.4. Registry . 9 3.5. System Wide Information Management (SWIM) . 9 3.6. Taxonomy . 9 3.7. Web Service . 10 4. Abbreviated Terms . 11 5. Overview . 12 6. Review of Data Models . 13 6.1. Information Exchange Models . 13 6.1.1. Flight Information Exchange Model (FIXM). 13 6.1.2. Aeronautical Information Exchange (AIXM) Model. 13 6.1.3. Weather Information Exchange Model (WXXM) . 14 6.1.4. NASA Air Traffic Management (ATM) Model . 14 6.2. Service description models . 19 6.2.1. Service Description Conceptual Model (SDCM) . 19 6.2.2. Web Service Description Ontological Model (WSDOM). 23 6.2.3. SWIM Documentation Controlled Vocabulary (FAA) . 25 7. Semantic Enablement Approaches . 27 8. Metadata level semantic enablement . 33 8.1. Issues with existing metadata standards . 34 8.1.1. Identification of Resources. 34 8.1.2. Resolvable URI. 34 8.1.3. Multilingual Support . 35 8.1.4. External Resource Descriptions . 35 8.1.5. Controlled Vocabulary Management . 36 8.1.6. Keywords Types . 37 8.1.7. Keyword Labeling Inconsistencies .
    [Show full text]
  • OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization W3C Proposed Recommendation 22 September 2009
    OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization W3C Proposed Recommendation 22 September 2009 OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization W3C Proposed Recommendation 22 September 2009 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-xml-serialization-20090922/ Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-xml-serialization/ Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-owl2-xml-serialization-20090611/ (color-coded diff) Editors: Boris Motik, Oxford University Computing Laboratory Bijan Parsia, University of Manchester Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Bell Labs Research, Alcatel-Lucent Contributors: (in alphabetical order) Sean Bechhofer, University of Manchester Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Oxford University Computing Laboratory Achille Fokoue, IBM Corporation Rinke Hoekstra, University of Amsterdam This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PDF version. Copyright © 2009 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract The OWL 2 Web Ontology Language, informally OWL 2, is an ontology language for the Semantic Web with formally defined meaning. OWL 2 ontologies provide classes, properties, individuals, and data values and are stored as Semantic Web documents. OWL 2 ontologies can be used along with information written in RDF, and OWL 2 ontologies themselves are primarily exchanged as RDF documents. The OWL 2 Document Overview describes the overall state of OWL 2, and should be read before other OWL 2 documents. Page 1 of 35 http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-xml-serialization-20090922/ OWL 2 Web Ontology Language XML Serialization W3C Proposed Recommendation 22 September 2009 This document specifies an XML serialization for OWL 2 that mirrors its structural specification.
    [Show full text]
  • XHTML+Rdfa 1.1 - Third Edition Table of Contents
    XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Table of Contents XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Support for RDFa via XHTML Modularization W3C Recommendation 17 March 2015 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20150317/ Latest published version: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa/ Implementation report: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/CR-ImplementationReport Previous version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PER-xhtml-rdfa-20141216/ Previous Recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20130822/ Editor: Shane McCarron, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc., [email protected] Please check the errata for any errors or issues reported since publication. This document is also available in these non-normative formats: XHTML+RDFa, Diff from Previous Recommendation, Postscript version, and PDF version The English version of this specification is the only normative version. Non-normative translations may also be available. Copyright © 2007-2015 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio, Beihang). W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract RDFa Core 1.1 [RDFA-CORE [p.61] ] defines attributes and syntax for embedding semantic markup in Host Languages. This document defines one such Host Language. This language is a superset of XHTML 1.1 [XHTML11-2e [p.61] ], integrating the attributes as defined in RDFa Core 1.1. This document is intended for authors who want to create XHTML Family documents that embed rich semantic markup. - 1 - Status of This Document XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition Status of This Document This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Semantic Web
    State of the Semantic Web Ivan Herman, W3C Sunday, 18 May, 2008 (2) > So where are we with the Semantic Web? State of the Semantic Web, Ivan Herman (2) Copyright © 2008, W3C (3) > We have the basic technologies Stable specifications for the basics since 2004: RDF, OWL Work is being done to properly incorporate rules We have a standard for query since 2008: SPARQL We have some additional technologies to access/create RDF data: GRDDL, RDFa, POWDER, … Some fundamental vocabularies became pervasive (FOAF, Dublin Core,…) State of the Semantic Web, Ivan Herman (3) Copyright © 2008, W3C (4) > Lots of Tools (not an exhaustive list!) • Triple Stores • Middleware • RDFStore, AllegroGraph, Tucana • IODT, Open Anzo, DartGrid • RDF Gateway, Mulgara, SPASQL • Ontology Works, Ontoprise • Jena’s SDB, D2R Server, SOR • Profium Semantic Information Router • Virtuoso, Oracle11g • Software AG’s EII, Thetus Publisher, Asio, SDS • Sesame, OWLIM, Tallis Platform • … • … • Semantic Web Browsers • Reasoners • Disco, Tabulator, Zitgist, OpenLink Viewer • Pellet, RacerPro, KAON2, FaCT++ • … • Ontobroker, Ontotext • Development Tools SHER, Oracle 11g, AllegroGraph • • SemanticWorks, Protégé • … • Jena, Redland, RDFLib, RAP • Converters • Sesame, SWI-Prolog • flickurl, TopBraid Composer • TopBraid Composer, DOME • GRDDL, Triplr, jpeg2rdf • … • … • Semantic Wiki and CMS systems • Search Engines • Semantic Media Wiki, Platypus • Falcon, Sindice, Swoogle • Visual knowledge • … • Drupal 7 Inspired by “Enterprise Semantic Web in Practice”, Jeff Pollock, Oracle. See also
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization's All Very Well, but What About the Exabytes of Existing
    Standardization’s all very well, but what about the Exabytes of Existing Content and Learner Contributions? Felix Mödritscher 1), Victor Manuel García-Barrios 2) 1) Institute for Information Systems and New Media, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, Augasse 2-6, 1090 Vienna, Austria [email protected] 2) Institute for Information Systems and Computer Media, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 16c, 8010 Graz, Austria [email protected] 1. Problem Definition Standardization in the field of technology-enhanced learning focuses on structuring and aggregating assets to interoperable educational entities, like a course package. However, available standards and specifications in this area do not include an approach for addressing semantics embedded in existing content. This consideration might be useful for user-centered concepts, like learners tagging or commenting existing material, as well as for automated mechanism, like extracting relations or other meta-information automatically from the resources. In the upcoming section we indicate application areas and explain why available standards and specifications do not support these scenarios. Thereafter, we present a XML- based description language for semantics embedded in web-based content, which might be a solution for these use cases. Finally, we summarize and discuss some experiences on in- content semantics from former projects, particularly AdeLE (Adaptive e-Learning with Eye- tracking, http://adele.fh-joanneum.at) and iCamp (http://icamp.eu), and give an outlook on future work. 2. Application Areas and Shortcomings of Standards In 2004 we came in the situation that we had to cope with semantic enrichment of existing learning content, precisely to enable facilitators to tag web-based resources.
    [Show full text]
  • RIF in RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010
    RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-in-rdf-20100622/ Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-in-rdf/ Editors: Sandro Hawke, W3C/MIT This document is also available in these non-normative formats: PDF version. Copyright © 2010 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply. Abstract This document specifies a reversible mapping (or transformation) from Rule Interchange Format (RIF) XML documents to Resource Description Framework (RDF) graphs. This mapping allows the contents of RIF documents to be interoperably stored and processed as RDF triples, using existing serializations and tools for RDF. When used with the standard mapping from RDF triples to RIF frames, this also provides a "reflection" or "introspection" mechanism, an interoperable way for RIF rules to operate on RIF documents. Status of this Document May Be Superseded This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/ TR/. Page 1 of 17 http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rif-in-rdf-20100622/ RIF In RDF W3C Working Draft 22 June 2010 Set of Documents This document is being published as one of a set of 11 documents: 1. RIF Overview 2. RIF Core Dialect 3. RIF Basic Logic Dialect 4.
    [Show full text]
  • RDF and Property Graphs Interoperability: Status and Issues
    RDF and Property Graphs Interoperability: Status and Issues Renzo Angles1;2, Harsh Thakkar3, Dominik Tomaszuk4 1 Universidad de Talca, Chile 2 Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data, Chile 3 University of Bonn, Germany 4 University of Bialystok, Poland [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. RDF and Property Graph databases are two approaches for data management that are based on modeling, storing and querying graph-like data. In this paper, we present a short study about the inter- operability between these approaches. We review the current solutions to the problem, identify their features, and discuss the inherent issues. 1 Introduction RDF [24] and graph databases [37] are two approaches for data management that are based on modeling, storing and querying graph-like data. Several database systems based on these models are gaining relevance in the industry due to their use in several domains where graphs and network analytics are required [6]. Both, RDF and graph database systems are tightly connected as they are based on graph-oriented database models. On the one hand, RDF database sys- tems (or triplestores) are based on the RDF data model [24], their standard query language is SPARQL [19], and there are languages to describe structure, restric- tions and semantics on RDF data (e.g. RDF Schema [13], OWL [18], SHACL [25], and ShEx [11]). On the other hand, most graph database systems are based on the Property Graph (PG) data model [7], there is no standard query language (although there are several proposals [4]), and the notions of graph schema and integrity constraints are limited [32].
    [Show full text]
  • The Resource Description Framework and Its Schema Fabien Gandon, Reto Krummenacher, Sung-Kook Han, Ioan Toma
    The Resource Description Framework and its Schema Fabien Gandon, Reto Krummenacher, Sung-Kook Han, Ioan Toma To cite this version: Fabien Gandon, Reto Krummenacher, Sung-Kook Han, Ioan Toma. The Resource Description Frame- work and its Schema. Handbook of Semantic Web Technologies, 2011, 978-3-540-92912-3. hal- 01171045 HAL Id: hal-01171045 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01171045 Submitted on 2 Jul 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Resource Description Framework and its Schema Fabien L. Gandon, INRIA Sophia Antipolis Reto Krummenacher, STI Innsbruck Sung-Kook Han, STI Innsbruck Ioan Toma, STI Innsbruck 1. Abstract RDF is a framework to publish statements on the web about anything. It allows anyone to describe resources, in particular Web resources, such as the author, creation date, subject, and copyright of an image. Any information portal or data-based web site can be interested in using the graph model of RDF to open its silos of data about persons, documents, events, products, services, places etc. RDF reuses the web approach to identify resources (URI) and to allow one to explicitly represent any relationship between two resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Experiments in Data Format Interoperation Using Defuddle
    Experiments in Data Format Interoperation Using Defuddle A Technical Note prepared as part of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) funded “Innovative Systems and Software: Applications to NARA Research Problems” project. Robert E. McGrath, Jason Kastner, Jim Myers Cyberenvironments and Technologies Directorate National Center for Supercomputing Applications University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign September 2009 Data Interoperability Experiments 2 Data Interoperability Experiments Abstract This document discusses the status of the Defuddle parser and recent work conducted as part of the “Innovative Systems and Software: Applications to NARA Research Problems” project. Robust sharing, reuse, and curation of data requires a clean separation of issues related to bits, formats, and logical content. To address these issues the Open Grid Forum is defining the Data Format Description Language (DFDL) standard for describing the structure of binary and textual files and data streams so that their format, structure, and metadata can be exposed as XML [3]. While this is sufficient for describing the internal layout of data (the “syntax”), interoperability and curation also require description of logical relationships within and between data sets in terms of globally understood concepts (the “semantics”). Extending the concept of the DFDL, and the Defuddle DFDL parser implementation, we have defined a two-step declarative mechanism for describing the structure and relations in binary and ASCII data in terms of vocabularies defined
    [Show full text]