Making a common graphical language for the validation of linked data.

Detta är en Master-uppsats från KTH/Skolan för datavetenskap och kommunikation (CSC)

Sammanfattning: A variety of embedded systems is used within the design and the construction of trucks within Scania. Because of their heterogeneity and complexity, such systems require the use of many software tools to support embedded systems development. These tools need to form a well-integrated and effective development environment, in order to ensure that product data is consistent and correct across the developing organisation. A prototype is under development which adapts a linked data approach for data integration, more specifically this prototype adapt the Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration(OSLC) specification for data-integration. The prototype allows users, to design OSLC-interfaces between product management tools and OSLC-links between their data. The user is further allowed to apply constraints on the data conforming to the OSLC validation language Resource Shapes(ReSh). The problem lies in the prototype conforming only to the language of Resource Shapes whose constraints are often too coarse-grained for Scania’s needs, and that there exists no standardised language for the validation of linked data. Thus, for framing this study two research questions was formulated (1) How can a common graphical language be created for supporting all validation technologies of RDF-data? and (2) How can this graphical language support the automatic generation of RDF-graphs? A case study is conducted where the specific case consists of a software tool named SESAMM-tool at Scania. The case study included a constraint language comparison and a prototype extension. Furthermore, a design science research strategy is followed, where an effective artefact was searched for answering the stated research questions. Design science promotes an iterative process including implementation and evaluation. Data has been empirically collected in an iterative development process and evaluated using the methods of informed argument and controlled experiment, respectively, for the constraint language comparison and the extension of the prototype. Two constraint languages were investigated Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) and Shapes Expression (ShEx). The result of the constraint language comparison concluded SHACL as the constraint language with a larger domain of constraints having finer-grained constraints also with the possibility of defining new constraints. This was based on that SHACL constraints was measured to cover 89.5% of ShEx constraints and 67.8% for the converse. The SHACL and ShEx coverage on ReSh property constraints was measured to 75% and 50%. SHACL was recommended and chosen for extending the prototype. On extending the prototype abstract super classes was introduced into the underlying data model. Constraint language classes were stated as subclasses. SHACL was additionally stated as such a subclass. This design offered an increased code reuse within the prototype but gave rise to issues relating to the plug-in technologies that the prototype is based upon. The current solution still has the issue that properties of one constraint language may be added to classes of another constraint language. 

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)