SPARQL Graph Store HTTP Protocol

• HEAD, GET, PUT, POST, DELETE over SPARQL named graphs.
• PATCH for modification using SPARQL 1.1 Update
• spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-http-rdf-update/

SGSP Issues

• Is a filesystem with limited access query capability a SPARQL Graph Store?
• claims POST - picks one pattern of the ~5 considered in HTTP spec.
  an RDF merge of the enclosed RDF payload enclosed into the RDF graph content identified by the request or encoded IRI
• RESTiness - PUT http://example.com/rdf-graph-store?graph=http%3A//www.example.com/other/graphvs. http://www.example.com/other/graph

Linked Data API

• CBDs or resources
  /doc/school/12345
• collections
  /doc/school
• tweaking collection views
  doc/school?_view=detailed
• paging views
  /school?_page=2
• sorting: _sort=size or _sort=-size,name
• configuration maps fully-qualified RDF predicates to short strings.
• thos short strings are used in RFC6570 URI templates
  e.g. "school/{identifier}"
• access-limited queries: ?type=primary (or /primary), ?district.name=City+of+London (or full-text search: ?search-district.name=London), ?near-lat=0&near-long=0&distance=5
• return formats: /doc/school.ttl|.json|.rdf|.xml?type=primary
• reserved path /api for API description, /api/doc/school for tailored API description.
• output configuration I haven't read about
• _query=… for when you want to turn up the geekiness

Linked Data Profile

• HEAD, GET, PUT, POST, DELETE over simple RDF graphs.
• HTTP-detailed, e.g. HTTP headers, If-match, etc.
• PATCH with unspecified format (TurtlePatch proposal)
• includes paging, ordering, containers, factories
• spec: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2012/SUBM-ldbp-20120326/

JSON-LD

• re-framing of existing data, à la Linked Data API maps to short strings.
• expresses all of RDF.
• spec: http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-syntax/

OWL API

• Java API for accessing OWL KBs
• e.g. Axiom, Annotation, AnnotationVisitor, CardinalityConstraint, …
• spec http://owlapi.sourceforge.net/documentation.html

RDBs

• Direct Mapping makes claims about RDF representation of RDBs
• no claims on namespace

Direct Mapping

<Employee/ID-7> rdf:type <Employee> .
<Employee/ID-7> <Employee#ID> 7 .
<Employee/ID-7> <Employee#fname> "Bob" .
<Employee/ID-7> <Employee#addr> 18 .
<Employee/ID-7> <Employee#ref-addr> <Address/ID-18> .
<Employee/ID-8> rdf:type <Employee> .
<Employee/ID-8> <Employee#ID> 8 .
<Employee/ID-8> <Employee#fname> "Sue" .

<Address/ID-18> rdf:type <Address> .
<Address/ID-18> <Address#ID> 18 .
<Address/ID-18> <Address#city> "Cambridge" .
<Address/ID-18> <Address#state> "MA" .
      

Why are we doing all this?

So mashups become queries.

SERVICE <http://uu3.org:8888/7tm_receptors>
  {
    ?iuphar  iface:family      ?family .
    ?iuphar  iface:code	       ?code .
    ?iuphar  iface:iupharName  ?iupharNm .
    ?human   iface:iuphar      ?iuphar .
    ?human   iface:geneName    "GABBR1" .
    ?human   iface:entrezGene  ?humanEntrez .
  }
SERVICE <http://dbpedia.org/sparql?default-graph-uri=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&should-sponge=&>

  {
     _:gene  dbp:entrezgene    ?humanEntrez ;
             rdfs:label        ?label ;
    FILTER (lang(?label) = "en")
  }
SERVICE <http://hcls.deri.org/atag/data/gabab_example.html>
  {
     ?topic  rdfs:label        ?label .
     ?post   sioc:topic        ?topic
  }