Semantic Web Application Development with LITEQ
Abstract
The Semantic Web is intended as a web of machine readable data where every data source can be the data provider for different kinds of applications. However, due to a lack of support it is still cumbersome to work with RDF data in modern, object-oriented programming languages, in particular if the data source is only available through a SPARQL endpoint without further documentation or published schema information. In this setting, it is desirable to have an integrated tool-chain that helps to understand the data source during development and supports the developer in the creation of persistent data objects. To tackle these issues, we introduce LITEQ, a paradigm for integrating RDF data sources into programming languages and strongly typing the data. Additionally, we report on two use cases and show that compared to existing approaches LITEQ performs competitively according to the Halstead metric.
Keywords
Resource Description Framework Description Logic Query Language SPARQL Query Triple PatternPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Brunk, S., Heim, P.: tFacet: Hierarchical Faceted Exploration of Semantic Data Using Well-Known Interaction Concepts. In: DCI 2011. CEUR-WS.org, vol. 817, pp. 31–36 (2011)Google Scholar
- 2.Dokulil, J., Katreniaková, J.: Navigation in RDF Data. In: iV 2008, pp. 26–31. IEEE Computer Society (2008)Google Scholar
- 3.Eisenberg, V., Kanza, Y.: Ruby on semantic web. In: Abiteboul, S., Böhm, K., Koch, C., Tan, K.-L. (eds.) ICDE 2011, pp. 1324–1327. IEEE Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
- 4.Fionda, V., Pirrò, G.: Querying graphs with preferences. In: CIKM 2013, pp. 929–938 (2013)Google Scholar
- 5.Halstead, M.H.: Elements of Software Science (Operating and Programming Systems Series). Elsevier Science Inc., New York (1977)Google Scholar
- 6.Hart, L., Emery, P.: OWL Full and UML 2.0 Compared (2004), http://uk.builder.com/whitepapers/0and39026692and60093347p-39001028qand00.htm
- 7.Heim, P., Ziegler, J., Lohmann, S.: gFacet: A Browser for the Web of Data. In: IMC-SSW 2008. CEUR-WS, vol. 417, pp. 49–58 (2008)Google Scholar
- 8.Kalyanpur, A., Pastor, D.J., Battle, S., Padget, J.A.: Automatic Mapping of OWL Ontologies into Java. In: SEKE 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
- 9.Oren, E., Delbru, R., Gerke, S., Haller, A., Decker, S.: Activerdf: object-oriented semantic web programming. In: WWW 2007, pp. 817–824. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
- 10.Oren, E., Heitmann, B., Decker, S.: ActiveRDF: Embedding Semantic Web Data into Object-oriented Languages. J. Web Sem., 191–202 (2008)Google Scholar
- 11.Paar, A., Vrandečić, D.: Zhi# - OWL Aware Compilation. In: Antoniou, G., Grobelnik, M., Simperl, E., Parsia, B., Plexousakis, D., De Leenheer, P., Pan, J. (eds.) ESWC 2011, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6644, pp. 315–329. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
- 12.Parreiras, F.S., Saathoff, C., Walter, T., Franz, T., Staab, S.: ‘a gogo: Automatic Generation of Ontology APIs. In: ICSC 2009. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: nsparql: A navigational language for rdf. J. Web Sem. 8(4), 255–270 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Rahmani, T., Oberle, D., Dahms, M.: An adjustable transformation from owl to ecore. In: Petriu, D.C., Rouquette, N., Haugen, Ø. (eds.) MODELS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6395, pp. 243–257. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Scheglmann, S., Scherp, A., Staab, S.: Declarative representation of programming access to ontologies. In: Simperl, E., Cimiano, P., Polleres, A., Corcho, O., Presutti, V. (eds.) ESWC 2012. LNCS, vol. 7295, pp. 659–673. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Wood, P.T.: Query languages for graph databases. SIGMOD Record 2012 41(1), 50–60 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar