Shape expressions: an RDF validation and transformation language

ABSTRACT

RDF is a graph based data model which is widely used for semantic web and linked data applications. In this paper we describe a Shape Expression definition language which enables RDF validation through the declaration of constraints on the RDF model. Shape Expressions can be used to validate RDF data, communicate expected graph patterns for interfaces and generate user interface forms. In this paper we describe the syntax and the formal semantics of Shape Expressions using inference rules. Shape Expressions can be seen as domain specific language to define Shapes of RDF graphs based on regular expressions.

Attached to Shape Expressions are semantic actions which provide an extension point for validation or for arbitrary code execution such as those in parser generators. Using semantic actions, it is possible to augment the validation expressiveness of Shape Expressions and to transform RDF graphs in a easy way.

We have implemented several validation tools that check if an RDF graph matches against a Shape Expressions schema and infer the corresponding Shapes. We have also implemented two extensions, called GenX and GenJ that leverage the predictability of the graph traversal and create ordered, closed content, XML/Json documents, providing a simple, declarative mapping from RDF data to XML and Json documents.

References

1. W. Akhtar, J. Kopecky, T. Krennwallner, and A. Polleres. XSPARQL: Traveling between the XML and RDF worlds and avoiding the XSLT pilgrimage. In M. Hauswirth, M. Koubarakis, and S. Bechhofer, editors, Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference, LNCS, Berlin, Heidelberg, June 2008. Springer Verlag.
2. D. Berrueta, J. E. Labra, and I. Herman. XSLT+SPARQL: Scripting the semantic web with SPARQL embedded into XSLT stylesheets. In Proceedings of 4th Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web. 5th European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC2008), 2008.
3. S. Bischof, S. Decker, T. Krennwallner, N. Lopes, and A. Polleres. Mapping between RDF and XML with XSPARQL. Journal on Data Semantics, 1:147--185, 2012.
4. I. Boneva, J. E. Labra, S. Hym, E. G. Prud'hommeau, H. Solbrig, and S. Staworko. Validating RDF with Shape Expressions. ArXiv e-prints, (1404.1270), Apr. 2014.
5. J. A. Brzozowski. Derivatives of regular expressions. J. ACM, 11(4):481--494, Oct. 1964.
6. J. Clark. An algorithm for RELAX NG validation. http://www.thaiopensource.com/relaxng/derivative.html, 2002.
7. K. Clark and E. Sirin. On RDF validation, stardog ICV, and assorted remarks. In RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, Ma, Boston, September 2013. W3c, http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val.
8. K. Coyle and T. Baker. Dublin core application profiles. separating validation from semantics. In RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, Ma, Boston, September 2013. W3c, http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val.
9. H. Knublauch. SPIN - Modeling Vocabulary. http://www.w3.org/Submission/spin-modeling/, 2011.
10. D. Kontokostas, P. Westphal, S. Auer, S. Hellmann, J. Lehmann, R. Cornelissen, and A. Zaveri. Test-driven evaluation of linked data quality. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW '14, pages 747--758, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
11. J. E. Labra and J. M. Alvarez Rodríguez. Validating statistical index data represented in RDF using SPARQL queries. In RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, Ma, Boston, September 2013. W3c, http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val.
12. J. E. Labra, J. M. Cueva, M. C. Luengo, and A. Cernuda. Specification of logic programming languages from reusable semantic building blocks. Electronic Journal on Theoretical Computer Science, 62:220--233, 2002.
13. J. E. Labra Gayo. Reusable semantic specifications of programming languages. In 6th Brazilian Symposium on Programming Languages, 2002.
14. B. Motik, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Adding Integrity Constraints to OWL. In C. Golbreich, A. Kalyanpur, and B. Parsia, editors, OWL: Experiences and Directions 2007 (OWLED 2007), Innsbruck, Austria, June 6--7 2007.
15. M. Murata, D. Lee, M. Mani, and K. Kawaguchi. Taxonomy of xml schema languages using formal language theory. ACM Trans. Internet Technol., 5(4):660--704, Nov. 2005.
16. OASIS Committee Specification. RELAX NG Specification:. http://relaxng.org/spec-20011203.html, 2001.
17. RDF Working Group W3C. RDF - semantic web standards. http://www.w3.org/RDF/, 2004.
18. RDF Working Group W3c. W3c validation workshop. practical assurances for quality rdf data, September 2013.
19. A. G. Ryman, A. L. Hors, and S. Speicher. OSLC resource shape: A language for defining constraints on linked data. In C. Bizer, T. Heath, T. Berners-Lee, M. Hausenblas, and S. Auer, editors, Linked data on the Web, volume 996 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2013.
20. S. Simister and D. Brickley. Simple application-specific constraints for rdf models. In RDF Validation Workshop. Practical Assurances for Quality RDF Data, Cambridge, Ma, Boston, September 2013. W3c, http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val.
21. M. Sporny, D. Longley, G. Kellogg, M. Lanthaler, and N. Landström. JSON-LD 1.0: AJSON-based Serialization for Linked Data. http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/, 2014.
22. J. Tao, E. Sirin, J. Bao, and D. L. McGuinness. Integrity constraints in OWL. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-10). AAAI, 2010.
23. E. van der Vlist. Relax NG: A Simpler Schema Language for XML. O'Reilly, Beijing, 2004.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Knowledge representation and reasoning

• Information systems

  • World Wide Web

    • Web applications

    • Web services