SPARKLIS on QALD-6 Statistical Questions

  • Sébastien FerréEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 641)


This work focuses on the statistical questions introduced by the QALD-6 challenge. With the growing amout of semantic data, including numerical data, the need for RDF analytics beyond semantic search becomes a key issue of the Semantic Web. We have extended SPARKLIS from semantic search to RDF analytics by covering the computation features of SPARQL (expressions, aggregations and groupings). We could therefore participate to the new task on statistical questions, and we report the achieved performance of SPARKLIS. Compared to other participants, SPARKLIS does not translate spontaneous questions by users, but instead guide users in the construction of a question. Guidance is based on the actual RDF data so as to ensure that built questions are well-formed, non-ambiguous, and inhabited with answers. We show that SPARKLIS enables superior results for both an expert user (94 % correct) and a beginner user (76 % correct).



I wish to thank QALD organizers for the datacube task, Pierre-Antoine Champin for valuable feedback and suggestions, and Eléonore Jouffe for her participation to the experiment.


  1. 1.
    Codd, E., Codd, S., Salley, C.: Providing OLAP (On-line Analytical Processing) to User-Analysts: An IT Mandate. Codd & Date Inc., San Jose (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferré, S.: Bridging the gap between formal languages and natural languages with zippers. In: Sack, H., Blomqvist, E., d’Aquin, M., Ghidini, C., Ponzetto, S.P., Lange, C. (eds.) ESWC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9678, pp. 269–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-34129-3_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferré, S.: Sparklis: an expressive query builder for SPARQL endpoints with guidance in natural language. Semant. Web: Interoper. Usability Appl. (2016, to appear)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferré, S., Hermann, A.: Reconciling faceted search and query languages for the Semant web. Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontol. 7(1), 37–54 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Höffner, K., Lehmann, J.: Towards question answering on statistical linked data. In: Semantic Systems. p. 4 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaufmann, E., Bernstein, A.: Evaluating the usability of natural language query languages and interfaces to semantic web knowledge bases. J. Web Semant. 8(4), 377–393 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lopez, V., Uren, V.S., Sabou, M., Motta, E.: Is question answering fit for the semantic web? A survey. Semant. Web 2(2), 125–155 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rietveld, L., Hoekstra, R.: YASGUI: not just another SPARQL client. In: Cimiano, P., Fernández, M., Lopez, V., Schlobach, S., Völker, J. (eds.) ESWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7955, pp. 78–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sacco, G.M., Tzitzikas, Y. (eds.): Dynamic Taxonomies and Faceted Search. IRS. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C Recommendation (2012).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IRISAUniversité de Rennes 1Rennes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations