Bridging Query Languages in Semantic and Graph Technologies

  • Hannes Schwarz
  • Jürgen Ebert
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6325)

Abstract

Software systems and software development itself make use of various technological spaces, e.g., relational databases, XML technology, ontologies, and programming languages. The usage of several technological spaces in a single system or development process requires a proper bridging between them. “Bridging” can be achieved by transforming concepts of one space into another, by using an adapter to make concepts of one space usable in another, or even by integrating both spaces into a single one, for instance.

This paper presents a transformation-based bridge between the query languages SPARQL and GReQL, with SPARQL originating from the semantic technological space and GReQL representing the model-based space. Since transformation of queries requires the prior mapping of the queried knowledge base, the approach also involves transforming the underlying data in the form of RDF documents and TGraphs, respectively. The benefits of the bridge are shown by applying it for traceability.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kurtev, I., Bézivin, J., Aksit, M.: Technological Spaces: an Initial Appraisal. In: International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems, pp. 1–6 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax – W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210
  3. 3.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B. (eds.): OWL 2 Web Ontology Language Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax – W3C Recommendation (October 27, 2009), http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027
  4. 4.
    Object Management Group: Meta Object Facility (MOF) Core Specification, Version 2.0 (2006), http://www.omg.org/spec/MOF/2.0/PDF
  5. 5.
    Steinberg, D., Budinsky, F., Paternostro, M., Merks, E.: EMF: Eclipse Modeling Framework. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF – W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115
  7. 7.
    Ebert, J., Bildhauer, D.: Reverse Engineering Using Graph Queries. In: Graph Transformations and Model Driven Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (to appear, 2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwarz, H., Ebert, J., Lemcke, J., Rahmani, T., Zivkovic, S.: Using Expressive Traceability Relationships for Ensuring Consistent Process Model Refinement. In: Proc. of the 15th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Object Management Group: Object Constraint Language, Version 2.2 (2010), http://www.omg.org/spec/OCL/2.2/PDF
  10. 10.
    Manola, F., Miller, E. (eds.): RDF Primer – W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210
  11. 11.
    Hayes, P. (ed.): RDF Semantics – W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210
  12. 12.
    Biron, P.V.B., Malhotra, A. (eds.): XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes – W3C Recommendation (May 2, 2001), http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502
  13. 13.
    Brickley, D., Guha, R. (eds.): RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema – W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210
  14. 14.
    Malhotra, A., Melton, J., Walsh, N. (eds.): XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators – W3C Recommendation (January 23, 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-functions-20070123
  15. 15.
    Ebert, J., Süttenbach, R., Uhe, I.: Meta-CASE in Practice: a Case for KOGGE. In: Olivé, À., Pastor, J.A. (eds.) CAiSE 1997. LNCS, vol. 1250, pp. 203–216. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ebert, J., Kullbach, B., Riediger, V., Winter, A.: GUPRO. Generic Understanding of Programs - An Overview. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 72(2) (2002), http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume72.html
  17. 17.
    Schwarz, H., Ebert, J., Winter, A.: Graph-based traceability: a comprehensive approach. Software and Systems Modeling (2009), http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=109378
  18. 18.
    Bry, F.B., Furche, T., Linse, B.: The Perfect Match: RPL and RDF Rule Languages. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2009), pp. 227–241 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holland, D.A.: PQL Language Guide and Reference. Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berglund, A., Boag, S., Chamberlin, D., Fernández, M.F., Kay, M., Robie, J., Siméon, J. (eds.): XML Path Language (XPath) 2.0 – W3C Recommendation (January 23, 2007), http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath20-20070123
  21. 21.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and Complexity of SPARQL. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 30–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Witte, R., Zhang, Y., Rilling, J.: Empowering Software Maintainers with Semantic Web Technologies. In: Franconi, E., Kifer, M., May, W. (eds.) ESWC 2007. LNCS, vol. 4519, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwarz, H.: Program Slicing - Ein dienstorientiertes Modell. Vdm Verlag Dr. Mller (2007), http://www.vdm-verlag.de/
  24. 24.
    Weiser, M.: Program Slicing. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10(4), 352–357 (1984)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ebert, J.: Software Engineering with Models and Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 9th Ninth International Baltic Conference on Databases and Information Systems, Riga, Latvia (to appear, 2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cranefield, S., Pan, J.: Bridging the gap between the model-driven architecture and ontology engineering. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 595–609 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Object Management Group: Ontology Definition Metamodel, Version 1.0 (2009), http://www.omg.org/spec/ODM/1.0/PDF
  28. 28.
    Silva Parreiras, F., Staab, S., Winter, A.: TwoUse: Integrating UML Models and OWL Ontologies. Technical Report 16/2007, Institut für Informatik, Universät Koblenz-Landau, Arbeitsberichte aus dem Fachbereich Informatik (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corno, W., Corcoglioniti, F., Celino, I., Valle, E.: Exposing Heterogeneous Data Sources as SPARQL Endpoints through an Object-Oriented Abstraction. In: Proc. of the 3rd Asian Semantic Web Conference on The Semantic Web (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hillairet, G., Bertrand, F., Lafaye, J.Y.: Rewriting Queries by Means of Model Transformations from SPARQL to OQL and Vice-Versa. In: Paige, R.F. (ed.) ICMT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5563, pp. 116–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alkhateeb, F., Baget, J.F., Euzenat, J.: Extending SPARQL with regular expression patterns (for querying RDF). Journal of Web Semantics 7, 57–73 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannes Schwarz
    • 1
  • Jürgen Ebert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software TechnologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauGermany

Personalised recommendations