Difference between revisions of "Updating Relational Data via SPARQL/Update"
(Created page with "{{Paper |Title=Updating Relational Data via SPARQL/Update |Authors=Matthias Hert, Gerald Reif, Harald C. Gall, |Series=No data available now. |Year=No data available now. |Abs...") |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 12:03, 28 June 2018
Updating Relational Data via SPARQL/Update | |
---|---|
Updating Relational Data via SPARQL/Update
| |
Bibliographical Metadata | |
Year: | No data available now. |
Authors: | Matthias Hert, Gerald Reif, Harald C. Gall |
Venue | No data available now. |
Content Metadata | |
Problem: | No data available now. |
Approach: | No data available now. |
Implementation: | No data available now. |
Evaluation: | No data available now. |
Contents
Abstract
Relational Databases are used in most current enterprise environments to store and manage data. The semantics of the data is not explicitly encoded in the relational model, but implicitly on the application level. Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies provide explicit semantics that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Converting all relational data to RDF is often not feasible, therefore we adopt an ontology-based access to relational databases. While existing approaches focus on read-only access, we present our approach OntoAccess that adds ontology-based write access to relational data. OntoAccess consists of the update-aware RDB to RDF mapping language R3M and algorithms for translating SPARQL/Update operations to SQL. This paper presents the mapping language, the translation algorithms, and a prototype implementation of OntoAccess.
Conclusion
In this paper, we presented our approach OntoAccess that enables the manipulation of relational data via SPARQL/Update. We introduced the update-aware RDB to RDF mapping language R3M that captures additional information about the database schema, in particular about integrity constraints. This information enables the detection of update requests that are invalid from the RDB perspective. Such requests cannot be executed by the database engine as they would violate integrity constraints of the database schema. The information can also be exploited to provide semantically rich feedback to the client. Therefore, the causes for the rejection of a request and possible directions for improvement can be reported in an appropriate format.
Future work
Future work is planned for various aspects of OntoAccess. Further research needs to be done on bridging the conceptual gap between RDBs and the Semantic Web. Ontology- based write access to the relational data creates completely new challenges on this topic with respect to read-only approaches. The presence of schema constraints in the database can lead to the rejection of update requests that would otherwise be accepted by a native triple store. A feedback protocol that provides semantically rich information about the cause of a rejection and possible directions for improvement plays a major role in bridging the gap. Other database constraints such as assertions have to be evaluated as well to see if they can reasonably be supported in the mapping. Also, a more formal definition of the mapping language will be provided. Furthermore, we will extend our prototype implementation to support the SPARQL/Update MODIFY operation, SPARQL queries, and the just mentioned feedback protocol.
Approach
Positive Aspects: No data available now.
Negative Aspects: No data available now.
Limitations: No data available now.
Challenges: No data available now.
Proposes Algorithm: No data available now.
Methodology: No data available now.
Requirements: No data available now.
Limitations: No data available now.
Implementations
Download-page: No data available now.
Access API: No data available now.
Information Representation: No data available now.
Data Catalogue: {{{Catalogue}}}
Runs on OS: No data available now.
Vendor: No data available now.
Uses Framework: No data available now.
Has Documentation URL: No data available now.
Programming Language: No data available now.
Version: No data available now.
Platform: No data available now.
Toolbox: No data available now.
GUI: No
Research Problem
Subproblem of: No data available now.
RelatedProblem: No data available now.
Motivation: No data available now.
Evaluation
Experiment Setup: No data available now.
Evaluation Method : No data available now.
Hypothesis: No data available now.
Description: No data available now.
Dimensions: No data available now.
Benchmark used: No data available now.
Results: No data available now.
Access API | No data available now. + |
Event in series | EDBT/ICDT + |
Has Benchmark | No data available now. + |
Has Challenges | No data available now. + |
Has DataCatalouge | {{{Catalogue}}} + |
Has Description | No data available now. + |
Has Dimensions | No data available now. + |
Has DocumentationURL | http://No data available now. + |
Has Downloadpage | http://No data available now. + |
Has Evaluation | No data available now. + |
Has EvaluationMethod | No data available now. + |
Has ExperimentSetup | No data available now. + |
Has GUI | No + |
Has Hypothesis | No data available now. + |
Has Implementation | No data available now. + |
Has InfoRepresentation | No data available now. + |
Has Limitations | No data available now. + |
Has NegativeAspects | No data available now. + |
Has PositiveAspects | No data available now. + |
Has Requirements | No data available now. + |
Has Results | No data available now. + |
Has Subproblem | No data available now. + |
Has Version | No data available now. + |
Has abstract | Relational Databases are used in most curr … Relational Databases are used in most current enterprise environments to store and manage data. The semantics of the data is not explicitly encoded in the relational model,
but implicitly on the application level. Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies provide explicit semantics that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Converting all relational data to RDF is often not feasible, therefore we adopt an ontology-based access to relational databases. While existing approaches focus on read-only access, we present our approach OntoAccess that adds ontology-based write access to relational data. OntoAccess consists of the update-aware RDB to RDF mapping language R3M and algorithms for translating SPARQL/Update operations to SQL. This paper presents the mapping language, the translation algorithms, and a prototype implementation of OntoAccess. a prototype implementation of OntoAccess. + |
Has approach | No data available now. + |
Has authors | Matthias Hert +, Gerald Reif + and Harald C. Gall + |
Has conclusion | In this paper, we presented our approach O … In this paper, we presented our approach OntoAccess that enables the manipulation of relational data via SPARQL/Update. We introduced the update-aware RDB to RDF
mapping language R3M that captures additional information about the database schema, in particular about integrity constraints. This information enables the detection of update requests that are invalid from the RDB perspective. Such requests cannot be executed by the database engine as they would violate integrity constraints of the database schema. The information can also be exploited to provide semantically rich feedback to the client. Therefore, the causes for the rejection of a request and possible directions for improvement can be reported in an appropriate format. can be reported in an appropriate format. + |
Has future work | Future work is planned for various aspects … Future work is planned for various aspects of OntoAccess. Further research needs to be done on bridging the conceptual gap between RDBs and the Semantic Web. Ontology-
and the just mentioned feedback protocol. +based write access to the relational data creates completely new challenges on this topic with respect to read-only approaches. The presence of schema constraints in the database can lead to the rejection of update requests that would otherwise be accepted by a native triple store. A feedback protocol that provides semantically rich information about the cause of a rejection and possible directions for improvement plays a major role in bridging the gap. Other database constraints such as assertions have to be evaluated as well to see if they can reasonably be supported in the mapping. Also, a more formal definition of the mapping language will be provided. Furthermore, we will extend our prototype implementation to support the SPARQL/Update MODIFY operation, SPARQL queries, and the just mentioned feedback protocol. |
Has motivation | No data available now. + |
Has platform | No data available now. + |
Has problem | No data available now. + |
Has relatedProblem | No data available now. + |
Has vendor | No data available now. + |
Has year | 2010 + |
ImplementedIn ProgLang | No data available now. + |
Proposes Algorithm | No data available now. + |
RunsOn OS | No data available now. + |
Title | Updating Relational Data via SPARQL/Update + |
Uses Framework | No data available now. + |
Uses Methodology | No data available now. + |
Uses Toolbox | No data available now. + |