Re: semsheets

My cordial thanks for this wealth of responses which I had not dared to
hope for! It will take me time to look at all these projects and products,
which ideally would find their places in a single and coherent picture.
Sometimes I shall ask a question concerning a particular approach or
statement.

A focus of mine will be on the question which approaches may be classified
as "declarative mapping languages", borrowing the term from [1] (slide 33).
I am sure that tools *not* qualifying as such may in particular scenarios
be a superior choice, but on the large scale I think it is declarative
mapping languages where the highest potential, perhaps even groundbreaking
success is too be expected.

For example, "resource specific XSLT scripts" (mentioned by Christian) may
be very efficient (as pointed out by Martynas), but they are not
declarative. And I suppose, the same applies to TARQL, but I may be
mistaken and will try to check. Beneath the variability of external
characteristics there may also be basic differences of perspective, as
hinted at by a quote from Enrico [2]: " Proposals focus on either
engineering content transformations or accessing non-RDF resources with
SPARQL. ... we explore an alternative solution and contribute a
general-purpose meta-model for converting non-RDF resources into RDF:
Facade-X."

With kind regards,
Hans-Jürgen


[1] Maria-Esther Vidal, Tutorial on "Challenges for Efficiently Creating
and Maintaining Knowledge Graphs".
https://service.tib.eu/ldmservice/dataset/sdmkgc
[2]   https://doi.org/10.3233/ssw210035

Am Mi., 23. Feb. 2022 um 08:10 Uhr schrieb Hans-Jürgen Rennau <
hjrennau@gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> I am interested in the transformation of non-RDF data into RDF data and I
> am puzzled, nay, haunted by a simple analogy. We have stylesheets for
> defining visual representation of data in a convenient, standardized way.
> Could we not have "semsheets" for defining semantic representation of data
> in a convenient, standardized way?
>
> I admit the oversimplification: CSS stylesheets are designed to work with
> HTML, a scope sufficient for practical purposes. Whereas "non-RDF data" is
> by definition a broad spectrum of media types, so the uniformity of a
> single "semsheet language" may not be attainable. But how about approaching
> the goal, based on an appropriate partitioning of data sources? For example:
>
> (1) Relational data
> (2) Tree-structured data
> (3) Other
>
> Tree-structured data comprises most structured data except for graph data
> - JSON, XML, HTML, CSV, .... And concerning "other", what comes to my mind
> is (i) unstructured text and (ii) non-RDF graph data.
>
> So keeping this partitioning in mind, how about standards, frameworks,
> tools enabling customized mapping of data to RDF?
>
> What I am aware of is very little:
>
> (1) relational data: R2RML [1], ?
> (2) tree-structured data: RML [2], ?
> (3) other: ?
>
> Note that I did not mention RDFa, as it is about embedding, rather than
> writing mapping documents, nor GRDDL, as it is about finding a mapping
> document, not its content.
>
> I am convinced that there are quite a few other standards, frameworks and
> tools which should be listed above, replacing the "?".
>
> Can you help me to find them? Any links, thoughts, comments highly
> appreciated. (And should you think the partitioning is faulty, please share
> your criticism. The same applies to the very quest for common, standardized
> mapping languages.)
>
> Thank you! With kind regards,
> Hans-Jürgen Rennau
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/r2rml/
> [2] https://rml.io/specs/rml/
>