A comparison of RDB-to-RDF mapping languages

Abstract

Mapping Relational Databases (RDB) to RDF is an active field of research. The majority of data on the current Web is stored in RDBs. Therefore, bridging the conceptual gap between the relational model and RDF is needed to make the data available on the Semantic Web. In addition, recent research has shown that Semantic Web technologies are useful beyond the Web, especially if data from different sources has to be exchanged or integrated. Many mapping languages and approaches were explored leading to the ongoing standardization effort of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) carried out in the RDB2RDF Working Group (WG). The goal and contribution of this paper is to provide a featurebased comparison of the state-of-the-art RDB-to-RDF mapping languages. It should act as a guide in selecting a RDB-to-RDF mapping language for a given application scenario and its requirements w.r.t. mapping features. Our comparison framework is based on use cases and requirements for mapping RDBs to RDF as identified by the RDB2RDF WG. We apply this comparison framework to the state-of-the-art RDB-to-RDF mapping languages and report the findings in this paper. As a result, our classification proposes four categories of mapping languages: direct mapping, read-only general-purpose mapping, readwrite general-purpose mapping, and special-purpose mapping. We further provide recommendations for selecting a mapping language. WG). The goal and contribution of this paper is to provide a feature-based comparison of the state-of-the-art RDB-to-RDF mapping languages. It should act as a guide in selecting a RDB-to-RDF mapping language for a given application scenario and its requirements w.r.t. mapping features. Our comparison framework is based on use cases and requirements for mapping RDBs to RDF as identified by the RDB2RDF WG. We apply this comparison framework to the state-of-the-art RDB-to-RDF mapping languages and report the findings in this paper. As a result, our classification proposes four categories of mapping languages: direct mapping, read-only general-purpose mapping, readwrite general-purpose mapping, and special-purpose mapping. We further provide recommendations for selecting a mapping language. A Comparison of RDB-to-RDF Mapping Languages

Declarative Data Transformations for Linked Data Generation: The Case of DBpedia

“…Nevertheless, even though data transformations are often required [16], recommendations or best practices were not established so far, leading to a broad range of diverse approaches.…”

“…For instance, xsparql [5] maps data in xml format, r3m [15] data in relational databases and Tarql 1 data in csv. Query-oriented languages are restricted to data transformations which can be translated when the query translation is performed, such as r3m that requires bidirectional transformations to retain read-write access [16].…”

EpiK: A Knowledge Base for Epidemiological Modeling and Analytics of Infectious Diseases

“…Multiple studies have addressed processing queries using mapping [44][45][46]. Bornea et al [44] describe novel query translation techniques as well.…”

Assessing and Refining Mappingsto RDF to Improve Dataset Quality

“…Due to the lack of query languages or other ways to refer to data in csv format or spreadsheets, different mapping languages were occasionally defined, e.g., the XLWrap's mapping language [22] that converts data in spreadsheets to rdf, or the declarative owl-centric mapping language Mapping Master's M 2 [26] that converts data from spreadsheets into the Web Ontology Language (owl). For relational databases, different mapping languages were defined [15], but the wc-standardized rrml prevailed.…”