• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Implementing Semantic Web applications:  reference architecture and challenges
 

Implementing Semantic Web applications: reference architecture and challenges

on

  • 5,454 views

Best paper award at the workshop for Semantic Web enabled software engineering 2009, at the International Semantic Web Conference 2009. ...

Best paper award at the workshop for Semantic Web enabled software engineering 2009, at the International Semantic Web Conference 2009.

Full paper at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-524/swese2009_2.pdf

Summary of the slides and the paper:

* an empirical analysis of 98 Semantic Web applications based on an architectural analysis and an application functionality questionnaire
* a reference architecture for Semantic Web applications
* the main challenges of implementing Semantic Web technologies and their effect on an example application
* approaches for mitigating the challenges

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,454
Views on SlideShare
5,434
Embed Views
20

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
140
Comments
0

2 Embeds 20

http://www.slideshare.net 19
http://artiada1.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Implementing Semantic Web applications:  reference architecture and challenges Implementing Semantic Web applications: reference architecture and challenges Presentation Transcript

    • Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Implementing Semantic Web applications: reference architecture and challenges Benjamin Heitmann, Sheila Kinsella, Conor Hayes, and Stefan Decker Workshop on Semantic Web Enabled Software Engineering 2009 ♥ Copyright 2009 Digital Enterprise Research Institute. All rights reserved. Chapter
    • Introduction Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Focus of Semantic Web research until now: benefits of Semantic Web technology Less research on: costs, effort, challenges of Semantic Web technology Result: estimating cost/benefit offset for Semantic Web technologies is difficult obstacle for uptake of Semantic Web technologies by real-world projects Our contributions: identify main challenges and outline Software Engineering solutions Benjamin.Heitmann slide 2 of 14 @deri.org
    • Overview Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Empirical Analysis of 98 Semantic Web applications architectural analysis + app functionality questionnaire Reference Architecture for Semantic Web applications Main challenges of implementing Semantic Web technologies and their effect on an example application Approaches for mitigating the challenges Benjamin.Heitmann slide 3 of 14 @deri.org
    • Empirical analysis - Architectural Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Goal: identify common functionality Result: components, allow comparison between apps 98 papers about apps from SemWeb challenge 2003-2008 & Scripting for SemWeb challenge 2006-2008 Benjamin.Heitmann slide 4 of 14 @deri.org
    • Reference Architecture for Semantic Web applications Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Empirical basis: architectural analysis provides standard decomposition criteria allows comparing of functionality Benjamin.Heitmann slide 5 of 14 @deri.org
    • Empirical analysis - Functionality Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Goal: characterise capabilities of components Result: statistics about the range of variations for each component Results for 37 apps validated by authors Survey covers 27 properties in 7 areas of functionality Benjamin.Heitmann slide 6 of 14 @deri.org
    • Empirical analysis - Functionality Functionality Variations(examples) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie Data Interface: data sources used (external/decentralised/evolving ?) Persistent Storage: Semantic Web standards supported (e.g. RDF, OWL, SPARQL ?) User Interface: generic/domain specific Data Integration: manual/automatic Search Service: structured/unstructured data Authoring: read-only/edit/create new data Crawling: one-time/continuous Benjamin.Heitmann slide 7 of 14 @deri.org
    • Implementation challenges (1) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 1. Integrating noisy and heterogeneous data integration service is very common (72%) expensive: 80% require manual intervention 76% allow updating data after initial integration Reasons: use of non-standard terms incorrect usage of vocabularies multiple URIs for the same objects and incorrect merging Benjamin.Heitmann slide 8 of 14 @deri.org
    • Implementation challenges (2) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 2. Missing or belated conventions and standards 70% allow access or importing of external data 60% can export data or are reusable as source only 1/3 allow creation of new data Reason: standards are just emerging: Linked Data principles: 2006, ~8 years after RDF (1999) RDFa for embedding RDF in HTML: finalised 2008 GRDDL for converting (X)HTML to RDF: finalised 2007 SPARQL update: not finalised RDF forms and RDF pushback: not finalised Benjamin.Heitmann slide 9 of 14 @deri.org
    • Implementation challenges (3) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 3. Mismatch of data models and APIs between components: components have different data models (majority) object oriented (92%), relational database, graph based slow, non-native APIs between components 4. Distribution of application logic across multiple components Logic included not just in code but queries, rules, formal vocabularies 58% using inferencing, 24% using queries Result of 3+4: higher maintenance costs, performance loss due to non-native API overhead Benjamin.Heitmann slide 10of 14 @deri.org
    • Example Application: SIOC explorer Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 1 - Integration: all data is RDF+SIOC, still 2 integration steps required 2 - Unclear best practices: every SIOC exporter requires different crawling 3 - Mismatched data models: graph/relational/OO Mismatched APIs: ruby<->java, SPARQL (slow) 4 - distributed app logic: crawler, integration, primary app logic Benjamin.Heitmann slide 11of 14 @deri.org
    • Mitigating the challenges (1) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 1. Delegating generic functionality to external providers 72% implement integration, 3 components required Delegating generic integration simplifies architecture Drawback: application specific integration may still be necessary Benjamin.Heitmann slide 12of 14 @deri.org
    • Mitigating the challenges (2) Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie 2. Assembling applications from components: most apps in survey created on case-by-case basis: multiple libraries multiple programming languages mismatch of native APIs distributed application logic provide frameworks / software factories to assemble and customise complete applications provide generic data integration implement best practices and guidelines centralise application logic allow app specific customisation inspiration: Ruby on Rails, PHPCake, Django (Python), Struts (Java) Benjamin.Heitmann slide 13of 14 @deri.org
    • Summary Digital Enterprise Research Institute www.deri.ie main challenges of implementing SemWeb tech cost of integrating noisy or heterogeneous data (non-RDF and RDF data) missing or belated standards and conventions mismatch of data models and APIs between components distribution of application logic across components approaches to mitigate the challenges: delegate generic functionality to external services support assembly of complete applications with frameworks empirical foundation: analysis of 98 Semantic Web applications Benjamin.Heitmann slide 14of 14 @deri.org