A GeoSPARQL Compliance Benchmark

Abstract

GeoSPARQL is an important standard for the geospatial linked data community, given that it defines a vocabulary for representing geospatial data in RDF, defines an extension to SPARQL for processing geospatial data, and provides support for both qualitative and quantitative spatial reasoning. However, what the community is missing is a comprehensive and objective way to measure the extent of GeoSPARQL support in GeoSPARQL-enabled RDF triplestores. To fill this gap, we developed the GeoSPARQL compliance benchmark. We propose a series of tests that check for the compliance of RDF triplestores with the GeoSPARQL standard, in order to test how many of the requirements outlined in the standard a tested system supports. This topic is of concern because the support of GeoSPARQL varies greatly between different triplestore implementations, and the extent of support is of great importance for different users. In order to showcase the benchmark and its applicability, we present a comparison of the benchmark results of several triplestores, providing an insight into their current GeoSPARQL support and the overall GeoSPARQL support in the geospatial linked data domain.

GeoSPARQL 1.1: An Almost Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard

“…The authors note that in the 3+ years since that statement's publication, GeoSPARQL 1.0 has become far more widely supported by Semantic Web databases (so-called "triplestores") and other Semantic Web applications, as evidenced by frequent attempts to benchmark geospatial-aware triplestores for GeoSPARQL compliance and performance [13][14][15][16]. Some further notes on GeoSPARQL support is provided in Section 6.…”

“…While the GIS community commonly organises geospatial features in the form of collections including in software such as ArcGIS 12 or QGIS 13 , before the inclusion of specific collection classes in GeoSPARQL 1.1., GeoSPARQL data users had to implement virtual collections from the results of SPARQL queries for compatibility with many of their tools. This required more work on behalf of tool maintainers for tools such as the SPARQLing Unicorn QGIS plugin 14 .…”

“…To test whether the reference implementation and all following implementations fulfill the criteria that the given standard sets, compliance benchmarking can be used. [13] created the first compliance benchmark for GeoSPARQL 1.0 using the HOBBIT benchmarking platform [33]. Once an execution of the GeoSPARQL compliance benchmark is finished, it may produce a benchmark result in RDF 20 .…”

“…The GeoSPARQL implementation of the Apache Jena software library GeoSPARQL-Jena [37] provides, according to recent benchmarks [13], the only complete implementation of the GeoSPARQL 1.0 specification. In addition, GeoSPARQL-Jena has been extended in a prototypical use case to support raster data in [38].…”

GeoSPARQL 1.1: Motivations, Details and Applications of the Decadal Update to the Most Important Geospatial LOD Standard

“…The authors note that in the 3+ years since that statement's publication, GeoSPARQL 1.0 has become far more widely supported by Semantic Web databases (so-called "triplestores") and other Semantic Web applications, as evidenced by frequent attempts to benchmark geospatial-aware triplestores for GeoSPARQL compliance and performance [13][14][15][16]. Some further notes on GeoSPARQL support is provided in Section 5.…”