Advertisement

Linked Data and Service Orientation

  • Erik Wilde
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6470)

Abstract

Linked Data has become a popular term and method of how to expose structured data on the Web. There currently are two school of thought when it comes to defining what Linked Data actually is, with one school of thought defining it more narrowly as a set of principles describing of how to publish data based on Semantic Web technologies, whereas the other school more generally defines it as any form of properly linked data that follows the Representational State Transfer (REST) architectural style of the Web. In this paper, we describe and compare these two schools of thoughts with a particular emphasis on how well they support principles of service orientation.

Keywords

Resource Description Framework Link Data SPARQL Query Architectural Style Service Orientation 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Alarcón, R., Wilde, E.: From RESTful Services to RDF: Connecting the Web and the Semantic Web. Tech. Rep. 2010-041, School of Information, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California (June 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alarcón, R., Wilde, E.: Linking Data from RESTful Services. In: Third Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, Raleigh, North Carolina (April 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beckett, D.: RDF/XML Syntax Specification (Revised). World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-rdf-syntax-grammar-20040210 (February 2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berglund, A., Fernández, M.F., Malhotra, A., Marsh, J., Nagy, M., Walsh, N.: XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (X DM) (2 edn.) World Wide Web Consortium, Proposed Edited Recommendation PER-xpath-datamodel-20090421 (April 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R.T., Masinter, L.: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax. Internet RFC 3986 (January 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J.A., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284(5), 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E., Yergeau, F.: Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (5 edn) World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-xml- 20081126 (November 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carroll, J.J., Bizer, C., Hayes, P., Stickler, P.: Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust. In: Ellis, A., Hagino, T. (eds.) 14th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 613–622. ACM Press, Chiba (May 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clark, K.G., Feigenbaum, L., Torres, E.: SPARQL Protocol for RDF. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-rdf-sparql-protocol-20080115 (January 2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Codd, E.F.: A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. Communications of the ACM 13(6), 377–387 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crockford, D.: The application/json Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON). Internet RFC 4627 (July 2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fielding, R.T., Gettys, J., Mogul, J.C., Frystyk Nielsen, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P.J., Berners Lee, T.: Hypertext Transfer Protocol HTTP/1.1. Internet RFC 2616 (June 1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fielding, R.T., Taylor, R.N.: Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology 2(2), 115–150 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glushko, R.J., McGrath, T.: Document Engineering. The MIT Press, Cambridge (August 2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gregorio, J., de Hóra, B.: The Atom Publishing Protocol. Internet RFC 5023 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grosso, P., Kosek, J.: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0 (1edn.) World Wide Web Consortium, Note NOTE-xml-model-20100415 (April 2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Organization for Standardization: Information Technology– Open Distributed Processing Unified Modeling Language (UML) Version 1.4.2. ISO/IEC 19501 (April 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobs, I., Walsh, N.: Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-webarch-20041215 (December 2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J.: Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-rdf-concepts-20040210 (February 2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacKenzie, C.M., Laskey, K., McCabe, F., Brown, P.F., Metz, R.: Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0. Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards, OASIS Standard (October 2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nottingham, M.: Web Linking. Internet Draft draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10 (May 2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nottingham, M., Sayre, R.: The Atom Syndication Format. Internet RFC 4287 (December 2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Passant, A., Mendes, P.N.: sparqlPuSH: Proactive notification of data updates in RDF stores using PubSubHubbub. In: 6th Workshop on Scripting and Development for the Semantic Web, Crete, Greece (May 2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pautasso, C., Wilde, E.: Why is the Web Loosely Coupled? A Multi-Faceted Metric for Service Design. In: Quemada, J., León, G., Maarek, Y.S., Nejdl, W. (eds.) 18th International World Wide Web Conference, pp. 911–920. ACM Press, Madrid (April 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Prud’hommeaux, E.: SPARQL 1.1 Federation Extensions. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft WD-sparql11-federated-query-20100601 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Hausenblas, M.: Use Cases and Requirements for Mapping Relational Databases to RDF. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft WD-rdb2rdf-ucr-20100608 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prud’Hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-rdf-sparql-query-20080115 (January 2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Raggett, D., Le Hors, A., Jacobs, I.: HTML 4.01 Specification. World Wide Web Consortium, Recommendation REC-html401-19991224 (December 1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schenk, S., Gearon, P., Passant, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Update. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft WD-sparql11-update-20100601 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilde, E.: Model Mapping in XML-Oriented Environments. Tech. Rep. TIK Report 257, Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland (July 2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schenk, S., Gearon, P., Passant, A.: SPARQL 1.1 Update. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft WD-sparql11-update-20100601 (June 2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilde, E., Liu, Y.: Lightweight Linked Data. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration, Las Vegas, Nevada (July 2008)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yee, R., Kansa, E.C., Wilde, E.: Improving Federal Spending Transparency: Lessons Drawn from Recovery.gov. Tech. Rep. 2010-040, School of Information, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California (May 2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Wilde
    • 1
  1. 1.School of InformationUC BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations