I have implemented RDFa on a shopping website.
Now, how to create triple store using those structured data?
There are thousands of products in the website. So, manually visiting each and every page and extracting RDF is not a good solution. Is there any automatic tools for this?
The answer depends on how you "implemented RDFa". It is unlikely that the majority of your content is expressed as static information, so it is also unlikely that the majority of your content requires scraping.
There are tools, such as D2R Server, that give you facilities for exposing your underlying datastore as a read-only SPARQL endpoint. The only trick will be if you do have static content and wish to expose that as automatically generated RDF as well. That would require some finessing.
The data which is in RDFa format on your website probably comes from a database, where it is in relational form, since you probably didn't add the RDF triples to the HTML manually. So the easiest way to get the data into the triple store would not be from the HTML, but by some kind of transformation of the original data in the database. In the end, RDF triples can be seen as a ternary relation that can well be stored in any relational database.
GRDDL (Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages) is a way of using XSLT to extract the RDF triples from the HTML, in case you do not have access to a relational database that stores the data. Hope this helps.
Related
We currently have a nicely relational sql server 2008 database that is our master application database. We are looking to improve an existing document storage mechanism which uses xml data types with something more schemaless that can handle similar but not identical documents and thought that couchdb would be good fit.
The idea is that the common meta data about the documents could be stored within sql server for ease of display/aggregation/reporting but the actual documents are stored in couch to handle the subtle differences in the documents. The idea is to make the most of the two different technologies.
For example the status, type, related person and date created would all be common across all documents and stored in sql but an email and a letter (obviously with different fields) could be stored in couch.
Then we can display our document grid for all types of document (thousands of docs) which can be queried through sql but the display of the doc gets its data from couch when the user requests to view it.
Something to bear in mind is that some document types are generated from templates that are also documents themselves (think mail merge/find and replace).
Application layer is asp.net 4.5, c#, repository pattern, Windsor for ioc, JavaScript
So, to the question...
Is this approach a sensible way to make the most of the two differing data storage paradigms?
Are we making our programming lives needlessly complex in the desire to "use the most appropriate technology for the problem"?
Does anyone have any experiences of trying something similar and if so, how did it go?
It's really not uncommon to use two different storage formats for a document: One for searchable aspects and metadata and another for presentation.
Looking at it in a more general way, the approach is somewhat similar to the one we developed at the Royal Danish Library and pushed in the Planets EU project:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221176211_Archive_Design_Based_on_Planets_Inspired_Logical_Object_Model
Here's another paper that discusses this approach in a more general way:
"Opening Schrödingers Library"
The goal was archiving. We recognized that when converting documents for archiving or preservation no sigle storage format was superior in all aspects of preserving the attributes, formats, looks, contents etc of the original document. Solution: Convert to several formats, and use a sophisticated digital object to track the conversions, and which aspects of the original were best preserved in which conversion.
So in my opinion the approach is theoretically and practically sound.
Practical issues: You will probably need some sort of digital object that keeps track of the various parts of a document, eg. whether it occurs in one system only (and so which one), or in both. It seems that you are going to use SQLserver for this aspect, and that sounds sensible.
We actually did implement the object model we describe in the paper, and last I hear they are still using it.
I'm writing a crawler which needs to get data from many websites. The problem is that every website has different structure. How can I easily write a crawler which downloads (correctly) data from (many) different websites? If the structure of a website will change will I need to rewrite the crawler, or are there other methods?
What logical and implemented tools can be used to improve the quality of data mined by an automatic web-crawler (many websites are involved with different structure)?
Thank You!
I presume you want to query it is some way, in which case you should store the data in a flexible data store. A relational database would not be fit for purpose as it has a strict schema, but something like mongodb which lets you store semi structured data without having to define a schema up front, but still provides a powerful query language.
The same goes for how you represent the data in the crawler code. Don't map the data to classes where the structure is defined up front, but use a flexible data structures that can change at runtime. If you are using Java then de-serialise the data into HashMaps. In other languages this might be called Dictionaries or Hashes.
If you're scraping data from websites that actually want to allow you to do that, chances are they will provide some sort of webservice to allow you to query their data in a structured way.
Otherwise, you're on your own, and you might even be violating their terms of use.
If the websites provide no APIs, then you're out cold and you have to write separate extraction module for each data format you're encountering. If the website changes the format, then you have to update your format module. A standard thing to do is to have plugins for every website you're crawling and have a testing framework which does regression testing with data you've already collected. When a test fails you know something went wrong and you can investigate whether you have to update your format plugin or if there is another issue.
Without knowing what kind of data you're collecting it will be very difficult to try to hypothesize about ways to improve the "quality" of the data that was mined.
Maybe you could find out whether the website allows you to access the data like API, if so, you could use this kind of structured data to your website directly. If not, you may need plugins for that. Or you could turn to other web crawlers with API access like Octoparse, to find the way to access their API to your own web crawler.
So I'm starting to learn XML. It seems like a simple flat file data system of which you can view output by using a server side language of your choice and some parsing. I don't really see the benefit to using XML over storing values in a database and doing the same kind of parsing. I mean it would seem that databases would be faster.
So what can you really do with XML that you can't/shouldn't do with a database? Is XML really that useful?
So what can you really do with XML that you can't/shouldn't do with a database? Is XML really that useful?
XML is an interchange format first and foremost. It allows you to transport structured data between programs, servers, or people, and retain a common parser and schema system.
XML of course can be horribly misused or overused.
This question is to broad (i.e. there are too many aspects in which they differ), yet main reason for XML is not even about data storage. It was designed as ultimate common platform for data exchange with defined rules how data is organised. Thus you can read/write valid XML on almost every platfrom and language.
XML is designed to be more human readable. XML can be opened easily in a text editor and read. Some XML readers can support folding, which also helps with getting a hierarchical organization to your data.
If you're processing files that's a different story. I think databases often have the option of exporting to XML.
You can carry your datas from one type database to another (example from MS-SQL to MySQL) by using XML.
Or sending datas from an application to another, which is used on many web applications.
I think it can be very useful for this.
I think it is comparison of apples to oranges...
There are a lot of usages of XML but it is not primarily used for storing data. It is very loosely coupled data structure when compared to databases.
One of the many usages of XML, which I encounter with very frequently is exchanging data from one program to another. Because it is very simple format one can create an XML file in Java program and other can parse(read) the xml file in VB/C#/Python/Cocoa or any other language.
One such use of XML is Webservices where client programs can call(Execute) code residing on servers, where requests and response both are in XML.
So one can say that strong feature of XML is interoperability.
On the other had databases are mainly used for storing and retrieving data, databases are extremely powerful to do fast retrieval/insertion of values in tables where XML will immensely fail because most of the time XMLs have to be read serially as oppose to tables residing in databases.
XML can contain highly complex tree data structures that cannot be easily represented in relational databases.
XML is also useful for representing documents (Word docs for example or HTML).
The thing that's so appealing about XML is that it is quite simple to create.
Python is a great language for converting text files into XML for example.
XML vs databases is a false dichotomy, because you can store XML in databases. Though it's true that a simple XML document can sometimes be used for an application that would otherwise have needed a database.
If you're dealing with documents (like articles in technical journals) then your only real choice is between XML and some proprietary equivalent. This of course is the problem that XML was originally invented to solve.
XML is also used extensively for data messaging. It supplanted EDI and ASN.1 in this role because it can handle all the complex data that EDI and ASN.1 can handle, but is itself much simpler. More recently we've seen JSON taking over some of this role, especially for "private" (as distinct from standardised) protocols, because JSON is simpler still, and works better with general-purpose programming languages.
XML, like any successful technology, has also been used extensively for problems where it isn't really needed. That's not a misuse, any more than it is a misuse of this forum to send a plain text message in a field that is capable of holding richly formatted text, or to ride my bicycle on a road that's engineered to take 40ton lorries: once the technology is in place, you might as well use it.
I am doing (want to do) some experiments with Linked Open Datasets particularly those put out by governments.
I have a RDBMS (more specifically MySQL). I designed it with semantic web ideas in mind i.e. I have a information stored as objects, predicates and classes which define objects. In turn all objects are related to each other though statements of the form subject --> predicate --> object (where the subjects are from the objects table).
I want to be able to query other RDF triple stores from my application and let other triple stores query my data. Is it possible to "set something up" so that this is possible?
I have looked at Jena. Using Jena seems to mean I have to it as a storage application rather than MySQL - the only problem with this is that I include a new concept called a category (which I don't think is part of the semantic web languages). I will use categories to help with displaying information (they don't have any other meaning) but using Jena seems to mean that I can't organise predicates under categories for more convenient viewing.
I am using Java so a JAVA API is preferred.
It's also possible I misunderstood the purpose of Jena, and maybe that can be of use, but I am not sure how.
I am sure four days from now this question will seem rather silly, but at the moment I am somewhat confused about how to proceed.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a new concept called category", perhaps you can give an example?
If you mean that you want to add additional metadata, perhaps as a way of organizing information in the user interface, there is no need to extend the semantic web languages or storage systems - they can already do what you want.
Suppose you have data for a school from the UK Government schools dataset (using Turtle encoding for brevity):
#prefix sch-ont: <http://education.data.gov.uk/def/school/>.
<http://education.data.gov.uk/id/school/135412>
a sch-ont:School;
sch-ont:establishmentStatus
<http://education.data.gov.uk/def/school/EstablishmentStatus_Open>;
sch-ont:MSOA <http://statistics.data.gov.uk/id/msoa/E02000001>;
sch-ont:establishmentName "Guildhall School of Music and Drama";
...
You can directly query that data from the SPARQL end-point, or you can download the data and store it locally in your own triple store. Either way, you're perfectly at liberty to add extra information that's useful to your users. For example:
#prefix ankurs-app: <http://ankur.org/example/app/vocab/display#>.
<http://education.data.gov.uk/id/school/135412>
ankurs-app:category ankurs-app:wkdCool.
You can store this new triple in the same graph as the downloaded data, or you can store it in a separate named-graph to indicate that it's information that has a different provenance than the source data. Either way, it's then simple to query it either programmatically from Jena, or via a SPARQL query.
Doing a layout for efficiently querying schemaless triple-centric data is a well-studied, and hard, problem. Most of the RDF platforms, including Jena, have well-optimised code for querying and updating triples from their own database schemes. You would have to have very good reasons for embarking on your own relational table layout :)
If you really do need to take an existing relational table scheme and map it to a Jena RDF model, look at D2RQ.
Why didn't you just use a triple store to store all of your data? If you use a triple store with SPARQL endpoint capability then you would have a SPARQL-accessible web api. Similarly, many other data sets on the web are exposed as SPARQL endpoints and accessible via HTTP.
There are many triple stores available with persistent storage both in a db and otherwise (Jena + SDB, Mulgara, Virtuoso, Oracle, etc). You could certainly extend Mulgara through their resolvers to support queries against your custom db but I think that's probably a lot of work for not too much real value.
I'm sure you could use existing concepts to handle your notion of categories in RDF or perhaps by layering something over Jena.
I am interested in XML. I know it from Google's CSE.
It is often a pain for me to manipulate 3000-rows XML files.
This raises a question.
Why does Google use XML, not MySQL, such that I need to manipulate large XML -files?
XML has at least these advantages over SQL for data interchange purposes:
It's self-describing, you don't need to have any additional information to parse it.
It's a true standard, universally interoperable.
You aren't limited to tabular-oriented data: you can also use it to model hierarchies, for instance.
Probably the best you can do with SQL is ship tables in source code form, ie, as CREATE TABLE statements followed by a lot of INSERT statements. This is fine if you have a compatible database, but since SQL never really crystallized as a standard, interoperability at this level is very poor, and Google would have to offer multiple dialects (perhaps even for incompatible versions of the same DBMS).
XML is mostly human readable and cross platform. How would google send you data from just MYSql? Would you expect them to send you a binary blob that assumes you have the proper database to insert it into? How would you use that blob if MYSql wasn't installed, or a different version of MYSql was installed on your machine than on google?
XML is often uses as a transport format between systems. In CSE I would guess that google is transferring a lot of data from them to you in a format that many systems can use. If they used MySQL it would be no use to me as I don't know anything about it. However, pretty much most modern software frameworks can work with XML.
ADDITIONAL
Also, CSE (Customised Search Engine) probably expects that you don't need to do a lot of manipulation to the XML, just transform if for rendering to a web page. You can very easily perform an XSLT (Extensible Stylesheet Language Transformation) to an XML file to transform it in to an HTML fragment to use on your website.
MySQL is a specific SQL database engine. One not very suitable for providing the backend for the very very large dataset and special special needs that a search engine like google have.
I'm sure you can dig up info on how google's infrastructore, e.g. starting here
Relying on and exposing something specific like MySQL is not something you want to do when exchanging data over the internet.
XML on the other hand, being a general and textual markup language is ideal when you need
to interface and exchange data between systems. Thus it provides an ideal way to interface services such as Google CSE. You don't need to care about the specific implementation google have to provide the data, and Google don't need to care about the specific technology you use to manipulate the data
In addition to #Jared, there are XML databases. If the data is stored in XML, then it can be queried, transformed into html on the fly, or used in applications without the need for wrapping the data.
Why does Google use XML, not MySQL, such that I need to manipulate large XML -files?
access time, because there is no security check routine in DOM level on the accesed/open port /-: