How to Best Find a Partner? An Evaluation of Editing Approaches to Construct R2RML Mappings

  • Christoph Pinkel
  • Carsten Binnig
  • Peter Haase
  • Clemens Martin
  • Kunal Sengupta
  • Johannes Trame
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8465)


R2RML defines a language to express mappings from relational data to RDF. That way, applications built on top of the W3C Semantic Technology stack can seamlessly integrate relational data. A major obstacle to using R2RML, though, is the effort for manually curating the mappings. In particular in scenarios that aim to map data from huge and complex relational schemata (e.g., [5]) to more abstract ontologies efficient ways to support the mapping creation are needed.

In previous work we presented a mapping editor that aims to reduce the human effort in mapping creation [12]. While assisting users in mapping construction the editor imposed a fixed editing approach, which turned out to be not optimal for all users and all kinds of mapping tasks. Most prominently, it is unclear on which of the two data models users should best start with the mapping construction.

In this paper, we present the results of a comprehensive user study that evaluates different alternative editing approaches for constructing R2RML mapping rules. The study measures the efficiency and quality of mapping construction to find out which approach works better for users with different background knowledge and for different types of tasks.




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bizer, C., Seaborne, A.: D2RQ-treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In: ISWC (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dong, X.L., Srivastava, D.: Big Data Integration. PVLDB 6(11), 1188–1189 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Falconer, S.M., Noy, N.F.: Interactive Techniques to Support Ontology Matching. In: Schema Matching and Mapping (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kandel, S., Paepcke, A., Hellerstein, J., Heer, J.: Wrangler: interactive visual specification of data transformation scripts. In: CHI (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kharlamov, E., et al.: Optique 1.0: Semantic Access to Big Data. In: ISWC (Posters & Demos) (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neto, L.E.T., Vidal, V.M.P., Casanova, M.A., Monteiro, J.M.: R2RML by Assertion: A Semi-automatic Tool for Generating Customised R2RML Mappings. In: Cimiano, P., Fernández, M., Lopez, V., Schlobach, S., Völker, J. (eds.) ESWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7955, pp. 248–252. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pinkel, C., Binnig, C., Kharlamov, E., Haase, P.: IncMap: Pay-as-you-go Matching of Relational Schemata to OWL Ontologies. In: OM (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinkel, C., et al.: Pay as you go Matching of Relational Schemata to OWL Ontologies with IncMap. In: ISWC (Posters & Demos) (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raimond, Y., Giasson, F. (eds.): Music Ontology (2012),
  10. 10.
    Rodriguez-Muro, M., Calvanese, D.: -ontop- framework (2012),
  11. 11.
    Salas, P.E., Marx, E., Mera, A., Breitman, K.K.: RDB2RDF Plugin: Relational Databases to RDF plugin for Eclipse. In: TOPI (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sengupta, K., Haase, P., Schmidt, M., Hitzler, P.: Editing R2RML Mappings Made Easy. In: ISWC (Posters & Demos) (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stuckenschmidt, H., Noessner, J., Fallahi, F.: A Study in User-centric Data Integration. In: ICEIS (3) (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Pinkel
    • 1
  • Carsten Binnig
    • 2
  • Peter Haase
    • 1
  • Clemens Martin
    • 2
  • Kunal Sengupta
    • 3
  • Johannes Trame
    • 1
  1. 1.Fluid Operations AGWalldorfGermany
  2. 2.Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State UniversityMannheimGermany
  3. 3.Wright State UniversityDaytonUSA

Personalised recommendations