Advertisement

Easy Web API Development with SPARQL Transformer

  • Pasquale LisenaEmail author
  • Albert Meroño-Peñuela
  • Tobias Kuhn
  • Raphaël Troncy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11779)

Abstract

In a document-based world as the one of Web APIs, the triple-based output of SPARQL endpoints can be a barrier for developers who want to integrate Linked Data in their applications. A different JSON output can be obtained with SPARQL Transformer, which relies on a single JSON object for defining which data should be extracted from the endpoint and which shape should they assume. We propose a new approach that amounts to merge SPARQL bindings on the base of identifiers and the integration in the grlc API framework to create new bridges between the Web of Data and the Web of applications.

Keywords

SPARQL JSON JSON-LD API 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been partially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program within the SILKNOW (grant agreement No. 769504) and MeMAD (grant agreement No. 780069) projects, and by the CLARIAH project of the Dutch Science Foundation (NWO). We want to thank Ilaria Tiddi for her support and suggestions on combining our work.

References

  1. 1.
    Abburu, S., Babu, G.S.: Format SPARQL query results into HTML report. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. (IJACSA) 4(6), 144–148 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergwinkl, T., Luggen, M., elf Pavlik, Regalia, B., Savastano, P., Verborgh, R.: Interface Specification: RDF Representation, Draft Report. Technical report, W3C (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Booth, D., Chute, C.G., Glaser, H., Solbrig, H.: Toward easier RDF. In: W3C Workshop on Web Standardization for Graph Data, Berlin, Germany (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corby, O., Faron-Zucker, C., Gandon, F.: A generic RDF transformation software and its application to an online translation service for common languages of linked data. In: Arenas, M., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9367, pp. 150–165. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corby, O., Faron-Zucker, C., Gandon, F.: LDScript: a linked data script language. In: d’Amato, C., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10587, pp. 208–224. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daga, E., Panziera, L., Pedrinaci, C.: A BASILar approach for building web APIs on top of SPARQL endpoints. In: International Workshop on Services and Applications over Linked APIs and Data (SALAD), vol. 1359. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Bethlehem (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ECMA International: ECMAScript 2015 Language Specification, 6th edn, ECMA-262. Technical report, ECMA International (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fielding, R., et al.: Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP/1.1): Header Field Definitions, RFC 2616. Technical report, Internet Engineering Task Force (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fielding, R.T.: Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures. Ph.D. Thesis (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gandon, F., et al.: Graph data on the web: extend the pivot don’t reinvent the wheel. In: W3C Workshop on Web Standardization for Graph Data, Berlin, Germany (2019)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groth, P., Loizou, A., Gray, A.J., Goble, C., Harland, L., Pettifer, S.: API-centric linked data integration: the open PHACTS discovery platform case study. Web Semant.: Sci. Serv. Agents World Wide Web 29, 12–18 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris, S., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 query language - W3C recommendation. Technical report, W3C (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huelss, J., Paulheim, H.: What SPARQL query logs tell and do not tell about semantic relatedness in LOD. In: Gandon, F., Guéret, C., Villata, S., Breslin, J., Faron-Zucker, C., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9341, pp. 297–308. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25639-9_44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lathuilière, M.: Wikidata SDK (2015). https://github.com/maxlath/wikidata-sdk
  15. 15.
    Lisena, P., Troncy, R.: Transforming the JSON output of SPARQL queries for linked data clients. In: International Conference Companion on World Wide Web (WWW Companion), pp. 775–780. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Lyon (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3184558.3188739
  16. 16.
    Meroño-Peñuela, A., Hoekstra, R.: grlc makes GitHub taste like linked data APIs. In: Sack, H., Rizzo, G., Steinmetz, N., Mladenić, D., Auer, S., Lange, C. (eds.) ESWC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9989, pp. 342–353. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47602-5_48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mynarz, J.: sparql-to-jsonld (2016). https://github.com/jindrichmynarz/sparql-to-jsonld
  18. 18.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ockeloen, N., de Boer, V., Aroyo, L.: LDtogo: a data querying and mapping frameworkfor linked data applications. In: Cimiano, P., Fernández, M., Lopez, V., Schlobach, S., Völker, J. (eds.) ESWC 2013. LNCS, vol. 7955, pp. 199–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41242-4_24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pedrinaci, C., Domingue, J.: Toward the next wave of services: linked services for the web of data. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 16(13), 1694–1719 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rietveld, L., Hoekstra, R.: Man vs. machine: differences in SPARQL queries. In: 4th Workshop on Usage Analysis and the Web of Data (USEWOD), Anissaras, Greece (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rietveld, L., Hoekstra, R.: The YASGUI family of SPARQL clients. Semant. Web 8(3), 373–383 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saleem, M., Ali, M.I., Hogan, A., Mehmood, Q., Ngomo, A.-C.N.: LSQ: the linked SPARQL queries dataset. In: Arenas, M., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9367, pp. 261–269. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25010-6_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seaborne, A.: SPARQL 1.1 query results JSON format - W3C recommendation. Technical report, W3C (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Speiser, S., Harth, A.: Integrating linked data and services with linked data services. In: Antoniou, G., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2011. LNCS, vol. 6643, pp. 170–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21034-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taelman, R., Vander Sande, M., Verborgh, R.: GraphQLLD: linked data querying with GraphQL. In: 17th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Poster & Demo Track, Monterey, California, USA (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taelman, R., Vander Sande, M., Verborgh, R.: Bridges between GraphQL and RDF. In: W3C Workshop on Web Standardization for Graph Data, Berlin, Germany (2019)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verborgh, R.: Decentralizing the semantic web through incentivized collaboration. In: 17th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), Blue Sky Track, vol. 2189, October 2018Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wright, A., Andrews, H.: JSON schema: a media type for describing JSON documents. Technical report, Internet Engineering Task Force (2017). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-handrews-json-schema/
  30. 30.
    Zaveri, A., et al.: smartAPI: towards a more intelligent network of web APIs. In: Blomqvist, E., Maynard, D., Gangemi, A., Hoekstra, R., Hitzler, P., Hartig, O. (eds.) ESWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10250, pp. 154–169. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58451-5_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.EURECOMSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.Vrije UniversiteitAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations