RDF2Graph a tool to recover, understand and validate the ontology of an RDF resource

Journal of Biomedical Semantics

Maria Suarez-Diez²  Vitor AP Martins dos Santos¹  Peter J Schaap²  Jasper J Koehorst²  Jesse CJ van Dam² 

[1] LifeGlimmer, GmbH, Markelstrasse 38, Berlin, Germany;Laboratory of Systems and Synthetic Biology, Wageningen University, Dreijenplein 10, Wageningen 6703 HB, The Netherlands

关键词: Ontology;    OWL;    SPARQL;    Visualization;    Semantic web;    Databases;    RDF;    Data integration;   

Others  :  1230474
DOI  :  10.1186/s13326-015-0038-9

 received in 2015-04-23, accepted in 2015-09-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Semantic web technologies have a tremendous potential for the integration of heterogeneous data sets. Therefore, an increasing number of widely used biological resources are becoming available in the RDF data model. There are however, no tools available that provide structural overviews of these resources. Such structural overviews are essential to efficiently query these resources and to assess their structural integrity and design, thereby strengthening their use and potential.

Results

Here we present RDF2Graph, a tool that automatically recovers the structure of an RDF resource. The generated overview allows to create complex queries on these resources and to structurally validate newly created resources.

Conclusion

RDF2Graph facilitates the creation of complex queries thereby enabling access to knowledge stored across multiple RDF resources. RDF2Graph facilitates creation of high quality resources and resource descriptions, which in turn increases usability of the semantic web technologies.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 van Dam et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Antezana E, Mironov V, Kuiper M: The emergence of semantic systems biology. New Biotechnol 2013, 30(3):286-90.
• [2]Brickley D, Guha RV. RDF vocabulary description language 1.0: RDF schema. 2004. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-schema-20040210/. Accessed 2015-04-16.
• [3]W, 3C organisation. RDF 1.1 concepts and abstract syntax. 2014. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/. Accessed 2015-01-26.
• [4]Mons B, van Haagen H, Chichester C, Hoen P-Bt, den Dunnen JT, van Ommen G, et al.: The value of data. Nat Genet 2011, 43(4):281-3.
• [5]Prud’hommeaux E, Seaborne A. SPARQL query language for RDF. 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/. Accessed 2015-04-15.
• [6]W, 3C organisation. SPARQL 1.1 Overview. 2013. http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-overview/. Accessed 2015-01-26.
• [7]Croft D, Mundo AF, Haw R, Milacic M, Weiser J, Wu G, et al.: The reactome pathway knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 2014, 42(Database issue):472-7.
• [8]Hastings J, Matos Pd, Dekker A, Ennis M, Harsha B, Kale N, et al.: The ChEBI reference database and ontology for biologically relevant chemistry: enhancements for 2013. Nucleic Acids Res 2013, 41(D1):456-63.
• [9]Jupp S, Malone J, Bolleman J, Brandizi M, Davies M, Garcia L, et al.: The EBI RDF platform: linked open data for the life sciences. Bioinforma 2014, 30(9):1338-1339.
• [10]The UniProt Consortium: UniProt: a hub for protein information Nucleic Acids Res 2015, 43(D1):204-12.
• [11]Belleau F, Nolin MA, Tourigny N, Rigault P, Morissette J: Bio2RDF: towards a mashup to build bioinformatics knowledge systems. J Biomed Inform 2008, 41(5):706-16.
• [12]Benson DA, Cavanaugh M, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, et al.: GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res 2013, 41(Database issue):36-42.
• [13]Law V, Knox C, Djoumbou Y, Jewison T, Guo AC, Liu Y, et al.: DrugBank 4.0: shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res 2014, 42(Database issue):1091-1097.
• [14]Mitchell A, Chang HY, Daugherty L, Fraser M, Hunter S, Lopez R, et al.: The InterPro protein families database: the classification resource after 15 years. Nucleic Acids Res 2015, 43(Database issue):213-21.
• [15]W, 3C organisation. OWL 2 Web ontology language document overview (second edition). 2012. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/. Accessed 2015-01-26.
• [16]Cerans K, Ovcinnikova J, Liepins R, Sprogis A: Advanced OWL 2.0 Ontology visualization in OWLGrEd. In DB&IS. Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications, vol. 249. Edited by Caplinskas A, Dzemyda G, Lupeikiene A, Vasilecas O. IOS Press, Amsterdam; 2012.
• [17]Solbrig H, Prud’hommeaux E. Shape expressions 1.0 definition. 2014. http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shex-defn-20140602/. Accessed 2015-01-26.
• [18]Boneva I, Gayo JEL, Hym S, Prud’hommeau EG, Solbrig H, Staworko S. Validating RDF with shape expressions. 2014. arXiv: 1404.1270. Accessed 2015-04-15.
• [19]Prud’hommeaux E, Labra Gayo JE, Solbrig H: Shape expressions: an RDF validation and transformation language. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2660517.2660523] webciteProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Semantic Systems. SEM ’14 ACM, New York, NY, USA; 2014. doi:10.1145/2660517.2660523
• [20]Splendiani A, Waagmeester A, Haupt C, Deus H. Semscape visualizes semantic data landscapes. 2012. http://apps.cytoscape.org/apps/semscape. Accessed 2015-07-21.
• [21]Smoot ME, Ono K, Ruscheinski J, Wang PL, Ideker T: Cytoscape 2.8: new features for data integration and network visualization. Bioinforma 2011, 27(3):431-2.
• [22]Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, et al.: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The gene ontology consortium. Nat Genet 2000, 25(1):25-9.
• [23]McCarthy L, Vandervalk B, Wilkinson M: SPARQL assist language-neutral query composer. BMC Bioinforma 2012, 13 Suppl 1:2.
• [24]Popov IO, Schraefel MC, Hall W, Shadbolt N: Connecting the dots: a multi-pivot approach to data exploration. In The semantic web-ISWC 2011. Lecture notes in Computer Science. Edited by Aroyo L, Welty C, Alani H, Taylor J, Bernstein A, Kagal L, Noy N, Blomqvist E. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg; 2011.
• [25]OpenLink Software Inc.iSPARQL. 2007. https://github.com/openlink/iSPARQL. Accessed 2015-01-26.
• [26]Schweiger D, Trajanoski Z, Pabinger S: SPARQLGraph: a web-based platform for graphically querying biological Semantic Web databases. BMC Bioinforma 2014, 15:279.
• [27]Tartir S, Budak Arpinar I. Ontology evaluation and ranking using OntoQA. In: International conference on semantic computing, 2007. ICSC 2007: 2007. p. 185–92. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICSC.2007.19.
• [28]Poveda-Villalón M, Gómez-Pérez A, Suárez-Figueroa MC: OOPS! (OntOlogy pitfall scanner!): an on-line tool for ontology evaluation. Int J Semant Web Inf Syst 2014, 10(2):7-34.
• [29]Duque-Ramos A, Boeker M, Jansen L, Schulz S, Iniesta M, Fernández-Breis JT: Evaluating the good ontology design guideline (GoodOD) with the ontology quality requirements and evaluation method and metrics (OQuaRE). PLoS ONE 2014, 9(8):104463.
• [30]Perez-Urbina H, Sirin E, Clarak K. Validating semantic web data with OWL integrity constraints. 2010. http://docs.stardog.com/icv/icv-specification.html. Accessed 2015-07-21.
• [31]Nguyen V, Bodenreider O, Sheth A: Don’t like RDF Reification? Making statements about statements using singleton property. Proc Int World-Wide Web Conf 2014, 2014:759-70.
• [32]Apache Foundation: Maven. 2001. http://maven.apache.org/index.html. Accessed 2015-01-26.