RMLEditor: A Graph-Based Mapping Editor for Linked Data Mappings

  • Pieter Heyvaert
  • Anastasia Dimou
  • Aron-Levi Herregodts
  • Ruben Verborgh
  • Dimitri Schuurman
  • Erik Mannens
  • Rik Van de Walle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9678)


Although several tools have been implemented to generate Linked Data from raw data, users still need to be aware of the underlying technologies and Linked Data principles to use them. Mapping languages enable to detach the mapping definitions from the implementation that executes them. However, no thorough research has been conducted on how to facilitate the editing of mappings. We propose the rmleditor, a visual graph-based user interface, which allows users to easily define the mappings that deliver the rdf representation of the corresponding raw data. Neither knowledge of the underlying mapping language nor the used technologies is required. The rmleditor aims to facilitate the editing of mappings, and thereby lowers the barriers to create Linked Data. The rmleditor is developed for use by data specialists who are partners of (i) a companies-driven pilot and (ii) a community group. The current version of the rmleditor was validated: participants indicate that it is adequate for its purpose and the graph-based approach enables users to conceive the linked nature of the data.


Link Data Mapping Language System Usability Scale Heterogeneous Data Source Mapping Editor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Bizer, C., Heath, T., Berners-Lee, T.: Linked data-the story so far. In: Emerging Concepts, Semantic Services, Interoperability and Web Applications (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R.: RDF Schema 1.1. Working group recommendation, W3C, February 2014.
  3. 3.
    Das, S., Sundara, S., Cyganiak, R.: R2RML: RDB to RDF Mapping Language. Working group recommendation W3C, September 2012.
  4. 4.
    Dimou, A., Vander Sande, M., Colpaert, P., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E., Van de Walle, R.: RML: a generic language for integrated RDF mappings of heterogeneous data. In: Workshop on Linked Data on the Web (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pinkel, C., Binnig, C., Haase, P., Martin, C., Sengupta, K., Trame, J.: How to best find a partner? An evaluation of editing approaches to construct R2RML mappings. In: Presutti, V., d’Amato, C., Gandon, F., d’Aquin, M., Staab, S., Tordai, A. (eds.) ESWC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8465, pp. 675–690. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sengupta, K., Haase, P., Schmidt, M., Hitzler, P.: Editing R2RML mappings made easy. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Semantic Web Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berglund, A., Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M.F., Kay, M., Robie, J., Siméon, J.: XML path language (XPath). World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M.F., Florescu, D., Robie, J., Siméon, J., Stefanescu, M.: XQuery 1.0: An XML query language (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bischof, S., Decker, S., Krennwallner, T., Lopes, N., Polleres, A.: Mapping between rdf, xml with xsparql. J. Data Seman. 1(3), 147–185 (2012). ISSN 1861–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fiorelli, M., Lorenzetti, T., Pazienza, M.T., Stellato, A., Turbati, A.: Sheet2RDF: a flexible and dynamic spreadsheet import&lifting framework for RDF. In: Ali, M., Kwon, Y.S., Lee, C.-H., Kim, J., Kim, Y. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2015. LNCS, vol. 9101, pp. 131–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pazienza, M.T., Stellato, A., Turbati, A.: Pearl: Projection of annotations rule language, a language for projecting (uima) annotations over rdf knowledge bases. In: LREC (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodrıguez-Muro, M., Hardi, J., Calvanese, D.: Quest: efficient SPARQL-to-SQL for RDF and OWL. In: 11th International Semantic Web Conference ISWC, p. 53. Citeseer (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noy, N.F., Sintek, M., Decker, S., Crubézy, M., Fergerson, R.W., Musen, M.A.: Creating semantic web contents with protege-2000. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2, 60–71 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, M., Levy, A.Y., Millstein, T.D., et al.: Navigational plans for data integration. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 67–73 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bizer, C., Seaborne, A.: D2RQ - treating non-RDF databases as virtual RDF graphs. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2004), vol. 2004. Citeseer, Hiroshima (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pinkel, C., Schwarte, A., Trame, J., Nikolov, A., Bastinos, A.S., Zeuch, T.: DataOps: seamless end-to-end anything-to-RDF data integration. In: Gandon, F., Guéret, C., Villata, S., Breslin, J., Faron-Zucker, C., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9341, pp. 123–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Han, L., Finin, T., Parr, C., Sachs, J., Joshi, A.: RDF123: from spreadsheets to RDF. In: Sheth, A., Staab, S., Dean, M., Paolucci, M., Maynard, D., Finin, T., Thirunarayan, K. (eds.) ISWC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5318, pp. 451–466. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Auer, S., Becker, C., Cyganiak, R., Hellmann, S.: DBpedia - a crystallization point for the web of data. Web Seman. Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 7(3), 154–165 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maali, F., Cyganiak, R., Peristeras, V.: Re-using cool URIs: entity reconciliation against LOD hubs. In: LDOW, vol. 813 (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heyvaert, P., Dimou, A., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E., Van de Walle, R.: Towards a uniform user interface for editing mapping definitions. In: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Intelligent Exploration of Semantic Data, October 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Richards, M.: Software Architecture Patterns. O’Reilly, Sebastopol (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bostock, M., Ogievetsky, V., Heer, J.: D\(^3\) data-driven documents. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 17(12), 2301–2309 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osmani, A.: Learning JavaScript Design Patterns. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brandes, U., Eiglsperger, M., Herman, I., Himsolt, M., Marshall, M.S.: GraphML progress report layer proposal. In: Mutzel, P., Jünger, M., Leipert, S. (eds.) GD 2001. LNCS, vol. 2265, pp. 501–512. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heyvaert, P., Dimou, A., Verborgh, R., Mannens, E., Van de Walle, R.: Approaches for generating mappings to RDF. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Semantic Web Conference: Posters and Demos, October 2015Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Charters, E.: The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ. J. 12(2), 68–82 (2003)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brooke, J.: SUS - a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 22, 1–55 (1932)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter Heyvaert
    • 1
  • Anastasia Dimou
    • 1
  • Aron-Levi Herregodts
    • 2
  • Ruben Verborgh
    • 1
  • Dimitri Schuurman
    • 2
  • Erik Mannens
    • 1
  • Rik Van de Walle
    • 1
  1. 1.Data Science LaboratoryGhent University - iMindsGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Ghent University – iMinds – MICTGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations