# Schema-Based Mapping Approach for Data Transformation to Enrich Semantic Web

Authors: Senthilselvan Natarajan; Subramaniyaswamy Vairavasundaram; Yuvaraja Teekaraman; Ramya Kuppusamy; Arun Radhakrishnan
Journal: Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Modern web wants the data to be in Resource Description Framework (RDF) format, a machine-readable form that is easy to share and reuse data without human intervention. However, most of the information is still available in relational form. The existing conventional methods transform the data from RDB to RDF using instance-level mapping, which has not yielded the expected results because of poor mapping. Hence, in this paper, a novel schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method (relational database to Resource Description Framework) is proposed, which is an improvised version for transforming the relational database into the Resource Description Framework. It provides both data materialization and on-demand mapping. RDB-RDF reduces the data retrieval time for nonprimary key search by using schema-level mapping. The resultant mapped RDF graph presents the relational database in a conceptual schema and maintains the instance triples as data graph. This mechanism is known as data materialization, which suits well for the static dataset. To get the data in a dynamic environment, query translation (on-demand mapping) is best instead of whole data conversion. The proposed approach directly converts the SPARQL query into SQL query using the mapping descriptions available in the proposed system. The mapping description is the key component of this proposed system which is responsible for quick data retrieval and query translation. Join expression introduced in the proposed RDB-RDF mapping method efficiently handles all complex operations with primary and foreign keys. Experimental evaluation is done on the graphics designer database. It is observed from the result that the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method accomplishes more comprehensible mapping than conventional methods by dissolving structural and operational differences.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Most of the data are still stored in the relational databases, but the current semantic web requires data in RDF form. So, it is essential to convert the relational database into Resource Description Framework since modern applications required data to be in RDF format for data processing or reasoning. There are two ways to get data in triplet form: data materialization and on-demand mapping discussed below.


### 1.1. Data Materialization

Data materialization is the process of transforming static source databases into RDF representation. To construct the RDF data graph equivalent to the source databases, the entire content is subjected to mapping rules, and this mechanism is referred to as graph extraction or RDF dump. After completing the data materialization process, the resultant RDF data graph is loaded into the triple store and accessed through the SPARQL (Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language) query engine. The process of transforming the source database into an RDF data graph and then loading it into a triple store is often referred to as Extract-Transform-Load (ETL) approach. With this approach, the number of data sources that can be integrated is limited by the triple store and query engine capacity. The data materialization key advantage is to facilitate further processing, analyzing/reasoning of the RDF data, which includes linking data to the Linked Open Data and executing heavy inference rules.RDF data is made available only once, so the third-party reasoning tool is used for applying complex entailments. Later on, complex queries are answered without compromising the run-time performances since reasoning is performed earlier. Even though several limitations are noticed, one significant burden is that it hardly supports extensive data sets. Another essential concern is to deal with outdated data. In the context of an application that updates the relational data frequently, the materialized RDF graph becomes obsolete. A solution is to run the extraction process periodically, which raises the question of compromising between the costs of materializing, graph reloading, and the tolerance of an application for outdated data [1]. In existing works, Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language (R2RML) [2] and direct mapping (DM) [3] mechanisms are used for data materialization. The SPARQL query engine evaluates a query against the RDF repository in which the materialized RDF data has been loaded. These existing methods are not properly handled the relationships (foreign key and primary key) and apply instance level mapping for data materialization. Because of this logic, the data retrieval time is more in the existing methods, and the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach resolves this issue. Instead of instance level mapping for conversion, the proposed method did schema level mapping, which improved data retrieval time.


### 1.2. On-Demand Mapping

The on-demand mapping approach evaluates the queries against the relational data during run-time in converse to the data materialization method. In this model, the data remains located in the legacy database. Whatever the way the converted data is accessed, queries to the target RDF data are rewritten into SQL form at the query evaluation time. The advantages and limitations of the on-demand mapping approach are the opposite of the data materialization process. It suits well for extensive data sets and dynamic data and hardly supports centralization due to limited resources. It guarantees that the returned data is always up to date since RDF data is not copied. Besides, it allows for the enforcement of access control policies implemented in the RDBMS [4]. Existing methods for on-demand mapping are relational data to RDF Mapping Language (RML) [5] and SPARQL-SQL Mapping Language (S2SML) [6]. These existing methods have some limitations, i.e., a SPARQL query is transformed to Xquery; then, it is converted to SQL. The query evaluation time is more in the existing approaches because of this processing strategy.As of now, many approaches have been proposed for data conversion, but the expected outcome is not yielded yet. This is due to the poor handling of the primary and foreign keys in the data conversion process. The key contributions of the research article are a modification of mapping strategy from instance level to schema level, which improves the data retrieval time, efficient handling of primary foreign keys, during this data conversion process which leads to the improvised outcome. The introduction of join expression in the proposed method was a translation from SPARQL to SQL was done efficiently.Section2 discusses the related work concerning data materialization and on-demand mapping. Section 3 elaborates the working of the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach. Section 4 illustrates the experimental evaluation of methods on data conversion. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the contributions made in this research work and future scope.


## 1.1. Data Materialization

Data materialization is the process of transforming static source databases into RDF representation. To construct the RDF data graph equivalent to the source databases, the entire content is subjected to mapping rules, and this mechanism is referred to as graph extraction or RDF dump. After completing the data materialization process, the resultant RDF data graph is loaded into the triple store and accessed through the SPARQL (Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language) query engine. The process of transforming the source database into an RDF data graph and then loading it into a triple store is often referred to as Extract-Transform-Load (ETL) approach. With this approach, the number of data sources that can be integrated is limited by the triple store and query engine capacity. The data materialization key advantage is to facilitate further processing, analyzing/reasoning of the RDF data, which includes linking data to the Linked Open Data and executing heavy inference rules.RDF data is made available only once, so the third-party reasoning tool is used for applying complex entailments. Later on, complex queries are answered without compromising the run-time performances since reasoning is performed earlier. Even though several limitations are noticed, one significant burden is that it hardly supports extensive data sets. Another essential concern is to deal with outdated data. In the context of an application that updates the relational data frequently, the materialized RDF graph becomes obsolete. A solution is to run the extraction process periodically, which raises the question of compromising between the costs of materializing, graph reloading, and the tolerance of an application for outdated data [1]. In existing works, Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language (R2RML) [2] and direct mapping (DM) [3] mechanisms are used for data materialization. The SPARQL query engine evaluates a query against the RDF repository in which the materialized RDF data has been loaded. These existing methods are not properly handled the relationships (foreign key and primary key) and apply instance level mapping for data materialization. Because of this logic, the data retrieval time is more in the existing methods, and the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach resolves this issue. Instead of instance level mapping for conversion, the proposed method did schema level mapping, which improved data retrieval time.


## 1.2. On-Demand Mapping

The on-demand mapping approach evaluates the queries against the relational data during run-time in converse to the data materialization method. In this model, the data remains located in the legacy database. Whatever the way the converted data is accessed, queries to the target RDF data are rewritten into SQL form at the query evaluation time. The advantages and limitations of the on-demand mapping approach are the opposite of the data materialization process. It suits well for extensive data sets and dynamic data and hardly supports centralization due to limited resources. It guarantees that the returned data is always up to date since RDF data is not copied. Besides, it allows for the enforcement of access control policies implemented in the RDBMS [4]. Existing methods for on-demand mapping are relational data to RDF Mapping Language (RML) [5] and SPARQL-SQL Mapping Language (S2SML) [6]. These existing methods have some limitations, i.e., a SPARQL query is transformed to Xquery; then, it is converted to SQL. The query evaluation time is more in the existing approaches because of this processing strategy.As of now, many approaches have been proposed for data conversion, but the expected outcome is not yielded yet. This is due to the poor handling of the primary and foreign keys in the data conversion process. The key contributions of the research article are a modification of mapping strategy from instance level to schema level, which improves the data retrieval time, efficient handling of primary foreign keys, during this data conversion process which leads to the improvised outcome. The introduction of join expression in the proposed method was a translation from SPARQL to SQL was done efficiently.Section2 discusses the related work concerning data materialization and on-demand mapping. Section 3 elaborates the working of the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach. Section 4 illustrates the experimental evaluation of methods on data conversion. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the contributions made in this research work and future scope.


## 2. Related Works

Since a huge amount of useful information is stored in a relational table format, the publication of RDB data on the web and integration of data from different RDBs has been a crucial research topic for Linked Open Data applications. Many approaches have been proposed over the last decade for converting traditional data into RDF graph format. With these research efforts, several studies have been conducted to compare techniques from diverse perspectives. There are two ways to get RDF data from RDB; one is data materialization which converts entire relational data into Resource Description Framework format. The second concept is on-demand mapping; whenever a piece of information is required, a SPARQL query is generated converted to SQL. It accesses the tabular data and gives back the result in semantic format. Here, the entire data is not materialized; only required information is fetched and provided in RDF form. This mechanism is suitable for dynamic data, and the first approach suits for static data.


### 2.1. Relational Data to Resource Description Framework

A comprehensive review on existing RDB-RDF methods is presented by Spanos et al. [7] to categorize them among disjoint categories: formation of database schema ontology, formation of domain-specific ontology either by using database model reverse engineering or by using database expert knowledge, and definition or identification of mapping between existing ontology and relational database. After that, features like data accessibility and language used in an ontology are discovered within each category. However, the Spanos method did not describe the explicit features and expressiveness of mapping languages. But specifically, it put stress on the construction and alignment of ontology. Later, Sequeda et al. [8] examined the methods that automatically apply direct mapping principles to translate relational data into Resource Description Framework (RDF). Sequeda analyzed the existing models and extracts ontological knowledge as RDFS or OWL data from SQL Data Description Language (DDL) representations. It ranges from simple methods like a table to class or column to property to advanced methods that try to discover relations like subsumption, symmetric, meronym, many-to-many, transitive relations, and the SQL features like checks triggers and integrity constraints. Tirmizi et al. [9] exploit all the possible combinations of the primary and foreign keys in relational tables. It is concluded that the quality of the ontology resulting from direct mapping depends highly on the richness of SQL schema concerning its encoding of domain semantics. The direct mapping is aimed at converting directly from RDB into RDF by explicitly encoded the semantics in the relational schema. Typically, direct mapping is applied when no ontology suitably describes the domain of the RDB or when the goal is to make data sources quickly available in a web as machine-readable format, with minimum concern for semantic interoperability. Direct mapping can also address versatile environments where databases may appear and frequently disappear with no time for manual alignment [10].During the requirement of semantic interoperability, ontology alignments are used to align the local ontology with existing domain ontologies. Augmented direct mapping helps by detecting the common design patterns automatically from the database that conveys the domain semantics to improve the excellence of direct mapping. For example, many-to-many relations are recommended by the tables where all nonprimary key columns are foreign keys to other tables; nullable/not nullable columns are converted into web ontology language (OWL) cardinality constraints; implicit subclass relationships are often suggested by a primary key which is then used as foreign key [11]. The generic language Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language (R2RML) [12] describes the set of mappings that translates the relational database information into RDF. It is the result of preliminary works held by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Pequeno et al. [13] proposed a semiautomated mapping generation procedure where R2RML mappings are produced based on a set of semantic correspondences (for classes and properties) defined by domain experts. Sengupta et al. [14] present the GUI-based R2RML mapping editor for nondomain experts to generate and alter the mappings. But, none of the abovesaid methods presents automatic generation from the relational database of R2RML mappings that encode the hidden data obtained from the RDB schema. Zhou et al. [15] respond to Jena and present some rules to produce OWL ontology from RDB. It is not semantic reserving due to connection loss between the foreign and primary keys as it is direct mapping. While preserving the relationship existing between foreign and primary key, Lin et al. [16] and El Idrissi et al. [17] translate the relational schema into OWL ontology, but the author did not alter the relational instances.


### 2.2. Translating SPARQL Query into SQL Query

Cyganiak [18] proposes relational algebra for SPARQL. In an assumption that schema-oblivious Resource Description Framework (RDF) stores and highlights the rules which establish the equivalence between SQL query and relational algebra. To translate SPARQL into a nested SQL query, Ma et al. [19] present the novel approach, which can be used directly by other SQL queries as a subquery. Similar to Cyganiak’s model, each pattern node in this approach is translated into a subquery. A facet-based model is proposed further to handle filter expressions. Still, the method suffers from the following two drawbacks: (1) resultant nested SQL query suffers from inefficiency, and (2) it requires support for GRAPH node, solution modifiers, named datasets, and other query forms. Such features are not alone the component of SPARQL query specification but also advantageous to practice those queries efficiently.On the other hand, Chebotko et al. [20] demonstrate the benefit of SQL query generation templates for join, union, triple pattern, filter, select, and optional algebra operators of SPARQL query. Harris and Shadbolt [21] demonstrate how simple optional graph patterns are translated into relational algebra expressions. In earlier, FSparql2Sql [22] works on the different cases of filters in SPARQL queries. While the objects of RDF take many forms like Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI), literals with and without language, and/or datatype tags, RDBMS values are generally numerical in nature or atomic textual. Later, Elliot et al. [23] propose various SQL translation algorithms by implementing different operators of SPARQL query (algebra). On the contrary to the existing models, the proposed work is aimed at producing flat or unnested SQL queries rather than multilevel nested SQL queries. Hence, the SQL query optimizer achieves better performance than others through SQL augmentations. SPARQL query operator slowly augments the SQL query rather than constructing a new nested query. The SPARQL to SQL Mapping Language (S2SML) algorithm [24] translates path queries to SQL queries utilizing linear-recursion build through recursive of sql’99. This S2SML algorithm is proficient enough to translate path queries with “//” and limited qualifiers to (a sequence of) SQL queries through sql’99 recursion operator. It also handles dtd recursion and XPath recursion uniformly with product automata.Further to optimize query translation, RDF to RDB Mapping Language (RML) constraint-based method is proposed [25, 26]. Unfortunately, this technique suffers from the following limitations. The first and foremost disadvantage of the method is that it is based on the functionality of sql’99 recursion. It is outdated and hence not supported by most currently available commercial products like Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle. Therefore, it is required to design an efficient query translation model that supports low-end recursion functionality for various products rather than involving only the advanced DBMS features of the most sophisticated systems [27, 28]. Secondly, SQL queries through sql’99 recursions generated from the translation algorithms are usually complex in structure and large. Hence, it is difficult to optimize by the platforms which are supporting sql’99 recursions.Due to this reason, RDBMS cannot optimize the less complicated nonrecursive queries effectively [29]. Still, the recursive operators are treated as a black box, and the user can put only the minimum effort to optimize them. Finally, the path query class managed by the recursive algorithms is limited to express XPath queries. Therefore, the method is not helpful to answer XPath queries for XML views, even though it is similar to XPath query translation to relational views. Up to now, various approaches were proposed to translate conventional data models into the semantic data model [30, 31]. But, they lack to satisfy all the core requirements which are framed by the WWW consortium. Information protection is one of the key issue in today’s world because all the devices are interconnected, and data is available digitally [32–35]. Ontology Based Data Access tool was developed to integrate relational and spreadsheet information [36, 37]. But it fails to produce the required yield; this is due to the lack in the mapping approach.


## 2.1. Relational Data to Resource Description Framework

A comprehensive review on existing RDB-RDF methods is presented by Spanos et al. [7] to categorize them among disjoint categories: formation of database schema ontology, formation of domain-specific ontology either by using database model reverse engineering or by using database expert knowledge, and definition or identification of mapping between existing ontology and relational database. After that, features like data accessibility and language used in an ontology are discovered within each category. However, the Spanos method did not describe the explicit features and expressiveness of mapping languages. But specifically, it put stress on the construction and alignment of ontology. Later, Sequeda et al. [8] examined the methods that automatically apply direct mapping principles to translate relational data into Resource Description Framework (RDF). Sequeda analyzed the existing models and extracts ontological knowledge as RDFS or OWL data from SQL Data Description Language (DDL) representations. It ranges from simple methods like a table to class or column to property to advanced methods that try to discover relations like subsumption, symmetric, meronym, many-to-many, transitive relations, and the SQL features like checks triggers and integrity constraints. Tirmizi et al. [9] exploit all the possible combinations of the primary and foreign keys in relational tables. It is concluded that the quality of the ontology resulting from direct mapping depends highly on the richness of SQL schema concerning its encoding of domain semantics. The direct mapping is aimed at converting directly from RDB into RDF by explicitly encoded the semantics in the relational schema. Typically, direct mapping is applied when no ontology suitably describes the domain of the RDB or when the goal is to make data sources quickly available in a web as machine-readable format, with minimum concern for semantic interoperability. Direct mapping can also address versatile environments where databases may appear and frequently disappear with no time for manual alignment [10].During the requirement of semantic interoperability, ontology alignments are used to align the local ontology with existing domain ontologies. Augmented direct mapping helps by detecting the common design patterns automatically from the database that conveys the domain semantics to improve the excellence of direct mapping. For example, many-to-many relations are recommended by the tables where all nonprimary key columns are foreign keys to other tables; nullable/not nullable columns are converted into web ontology language (OWL) cardinality constraints; implicit subclass relationships are often suggested by a primary key which is then used as foreign key [11]. The generic language Relational Database to RDF Mapping Language (R2RML) [12] describes the set of mappings that translates the relational database information into RDF. It is the result of preliminary works held by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Pequeno et al. [13] proposed a semiautomated mapping generation procedure where R2RML mappings are produced based on a set of semantic correspondences (for classes and properties) defined by domain experts. Sengupta et al. [14] present the GUI-based R2RML mapping editor for nondomain experts to generate and alter the mappings. But, none of the abovesaid methods presents automatic generation from the relational database of R2RML mappings that encode the hidden data obtained from the RDB schema. Zhou et al. [15] respond to Jena and present some rules to produce OWL ontology from RDB. It is not semantic reserving due to connection loss between the foreign and primary keys as it is direct mapping. While preserving the relationship existing between foreign and primary key, Lin et al. [16] and El Idrissi et al. [17] translate the relational schema into OWL ontology, but the author did not alter the relational instances.


## 2.2. Translating SPARQL Query into SQL Query

Cyganiak [18] proposes relational algebra for SPARQL. In an assumption that schema-oblivious Resource Description Framework (RDF) stores and highlights the rules which establish the equivalence between SQL query and relational algebra. To translate SPARQL into a nested SQL query, Ma et al. [19] present the novel approach, which can be used directly by other SQL queries as a subquery. Similar to Cyganiak’s model, each pattern node in this approach is translated into a subquery. A facet-based model is proposed further to handle filter expressions. Still, the method suffers from the following two drawbacks: (1) resultant nested SQL query suffers from inefficiency, and (2) it requires support for GRAPH node, solution modifiers, named datasets, and other query forms. Such features are not alone the component of SPARQL query specification but also advantageous to practice those queries efficiently.On the other hand, Chebotko et al. [20] demonstrate the benefit of SQL query generation templates for join, union, triple pattern, filter, select, and optional algebra operators of SPARQL query. Harris and Shadbolt [21] demonstrate how simple optional graph patterns are translated into relational algebra expressions. In earlier, FSparql2Sql [22] works on the different cases of filters in SPARQL queries. While the objects of RDF take many forms like Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI), literals with and without language, and/or datatype tags, RDBMS values are generally numerical in nature or atomic textual. Later, Elliot et al. [23] propose various SQL translation algorithms by implementing different operators of SPARQL query (algebra). On the contrary to the existing models, the proposed work is aimed at producing flat or unnested SQL queries rather than multilevel nested SQL queries. Hence, the SQL query optimizer achieves better performance than others through SQL augmentations. SPARQL query operator slowly augments the SQL query rather than constructing a new nested query. The SPARQL to SQL Mapping Language (S2SML) algorithm [24] translates path queries to SQL queries utilizing linear-recursion build through recursive of sql’99. This S2SML algorithm is proficient enough to translate path queries with “//” and limited qualifiers to (a sequence of) SQL queries through sql’99 recursion operator. It also handles dtd recursion and XPath recursion uniformly with product automata.Further to optimize query translation, RDF to RDB Mapping Language (RML) constraint-based method is proposed [25, 26]. Unfortunately, this technique suffers from the following limitations. The first and foremost disadvantage of the method is that it is based on the functionality of sql’99 recursion. It is outdated and hence not supported by most currently available commercial products like Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle. Therefore, it is required to design an efficient query translation model that supports low-end recursion functionality for various products rather than involving only the advanced DBMS features of the most sophisticated systems [27, 28]. Secondly, SQL queries through sql’99 recursions generated from the translation algorithms are usually complex in structure and large. Hence, it is difficult to optimize by the platforms which are supporting sql’99 recursions.Due to this reason, RDBMS cannot optimize the less complicated nonrecursive queries effectively [29]. Still, the recursive operators are treated as a black box, and the user can put only the minimum effort to optimize them. Finally, the path query class managed by the recursive algorithms is limited to express XPath queries. Therefore, the method is not helpful to answer XPath queries for XML views, even though it is similar to XPath query translation to relational views. Up to now, various approaches were proposed to translate conventional data models into the semantic data model [30, 31]. But, they lack to satisfy all the core requirements which are framed by the WWW consortium. Information protection is one of the key issue in today’s world because all the devices are interconnected, and data is available digitally [32–35]. Ontology Based Data Access tool was developed to integrate relational and spreadsheet information [36, 37]. But it fails to produce the required yield; this is due to the lack in the mapping approach.


## 3. Schema-Based RDB-RDF Mapping Approach

The technique used to map RDB to RDF based on schema level is described in the following sections. First, the essential requirements for mapping are reviewed, and then, the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method works are explained, followed by mapping relations.


### 3.1. Requirements of Relational Data to RDF Mapping

RDF is a standard framework used in the semantic web to express and interchange information about the web resources, whereas the Linked Open Data (LOD) instances are determined from the RDF. These resources can be people, documents, multimedia data, physical objects, abstract concepts, or anything. In RDF, a triple expression is employed to represent resources as subject–predicate–object. The subject in the triple expression indicates the resource, while the predicate indicates the aspects/traits of the resource and also states the relationship between the object and subject in the expression. An object is a literal value. A connected directed graph or in some applications, undirected graph is used to visualize the instances of the LOD, which are the triples of the RDF graph. This connected directed graph contains edges and nodes. The predicate forms the edges, while the subject and the object in the triples are the nodes of the graph. The sample triples [38] and their corresponding graph are shown in Figure 1. Rio is a person whose friend is Ben. Rio likes Monalisa, which was created by da Vinci. These data are represented as a graph which is shown below.Figure 1
Graph representation of triples—LOD.The Linked Open Data consists of the RDF graph model, while the relational database data are enclosed in the structured table. Based on the requisite analysis of RDB2RDF mapping, it is essential to propose an efficient mapping approach for the heterogeneous system with different query processing mechanisms and constituent elements. Some researchers have also examined formal requirements like information and semantic preservation. After thorough requirement analysis was done with different use cases, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have suggested eleven core requirements and five optional requirements for mapping relational database into its corresponding shared RDF Schema. To sum up the core requirements, the primary concerns of mapping [39–41] are as follows:
(i)
The local vocabularies of a relational database are translated into its correspondent ontology vocabularies. The idea behind mapping the relational database to an RDF graph is to publish the web’s relational database information in the current semantic web format. The mapping approach redefines the column name of the RDB table into its corresponding ontology vocabularies used in LOD efficiently based on the semantic attribute(ii)
The Uniform Resource Identifier URI’s of Linked Open Data is used to identify the mapped RDB resources. Appropriate information of RDF data is obtained by dereferencing the HTTP URI. Therefore, it is mandatory for the mapped RDB data to be in Linked Open Data form(iii)
A complete mapping method is required to translate RDB tables into their equivalent RDF graph (data materialization) and transform SPARQL query into SQL query (on-demand mapping). Thus, the mapping description acts as a mediator for transforming RDB and RDF data(iv)
The RDB to RDF mapping method should be capable enough to manage both foreign key, primary key constraints, and the M:N relationships. Hence, it is essential to construct an RDF graph that acts as the principal mechanism to join and merge RDB tables(v)
Due to normalization, some tables are decomposed for practical purposes, which are used only to merge tables. These normalized tables should be processed by the mapping method since they did not represent the conceptual schema. At any instance, the tables connected by conceptual attributes should be decomposed while mapping into an RDF graph from RDB data to preserve the reliable data modelAfter a complete analysis of the W3C mapping rule, the abovementioned requirements are compulsory to incorporate in data transformation. Conversely, ignore those crucial functionalities. Most of the RDB2RDF mapping method reveals the difficulty of managing foreign key constraints, normalized tables, data retrieval time, and SQL query generation. The limitations of the existing techniques are overcome by the proposed RDB-RDF mapping method efficiently.


### 3.2. Schema-Based Mapping

Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) represents the relational database in a conceptual schema similar to the RDF graph model. Consequently, it is anticipated that RDB-RDF mapping is also based on the Entity-Relationship Diagram of the RDB schema. It provides a reliable way of mapping and preserves the relational database’s conceptual structures and information. An entity in the Entity-Relationship Diagram is the logical object, which is the conceptual element of the RDF Schema class. This can be recognized distinctively in a domain since RDF data in triplets becomes LOD instances generated by RDF Schema classes and properties. The preliminary point for schema-based RDB-RDF mapping is the ERD of the RDB schema. The proposed method presents a superior quality like separation of concerns between instances and schema. Concentrating on the conceptual schema, the proposed mapping approach understands the flawless translation between relational data and LOD instances at the schema level. Like direct mapping, there is no need to state the mapping definition for all instances. So mapping description becomes more concise, and hence, the proposed mapping method is likely to understand each requirement of RDB2RDF mapping.


#### 3.2.1. Mapping Relational Database Schema to RDF Graph

The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach is enforced on primitive tables with conceptual attributes but not on relational tables representing only the relationship between tables. Usually, primitive tables are labeled by an entity in Entity-Relational Diagram, while the relational table that is created during the normalization process is inappropriate to the RDF graph. The mapping rules of the proposed method are listed below:(i)
Database to Namespace. The name of the database is mapped into the RDF namespace. It defines the domain terminologies to tables and their columns(ii)
Table Name as Subject. The name of the RDB table is mapped into the RDF subject. In triple expression, the subject refers to a particular resource with URI. In the proposed mapping method, the subject acts as an organizer to make the instances(iii)
Column as Predicate. Column in the RDB table is mapped into predicate of the RDF graph(iv)
Column Values as Object. The cell value of the table.column is mapped into the RDF graph object(v)
Row as Instance. Every row in an RDB table is mapped into its corresponding RDF triplesIn the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the schema of the primitive tables is conserved in the Resource Description Framework graph, which is shown in Figure2. The resultant RDF graph illustrates that the conceptual schema exists by default in the table and not in the data graph of instance triples. The mapped object value is represented by object value term like “table.column.” When the SPARQL query is triggered on RDB table, the instances will be generated based on the RDF graph.Figure 2
RDB-RDF mapping scheme.A table that acts as a resource is mapped into a subject with namespace and renamed to common ontology vocabularies, for example, rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type. The columnCi related to RDF predicates is converted into well-known vocabularies as CAMO, DC, and FOAF, available in http://schema.org. Likewise, schema-based mapping understands the semantic interoperability of the resultant RDF graph with effective mapping descriptions. The predicate’s object value is expressed by the term TableName.Ci. This value term helps to convert the SPARQL query into its corresponding SQL query (on-demand mapping). The subject in RDF triples generally represents a particular resource. But in the proposed schema-based mapping, the subject works as a virtual subject while composing triples. Practically, there is no need to exploit an extra identifier as the subject since their properties recognize the instances. Relatively, the subject in schema-based RDB-RDF mapping represents the class type of instances. Hence, the schema-based mapping method is efficient than traditional direct mapping and R2RML methods in data materialization. It also meets the theoretical requirements of RDB2RDF mapping mentioned earlier and preserves the conceptual schema. The proposed mapping method need not depend upon instances as they are stored in RDB. At any time, they are easily accessed by SQL queries.


#### 3.2.2. Predicate Types

To establish the relationship between tables, both the foreign key and the primary key are used. In some cases, both essential attributes are only used to connect tables as they are independent of the conceptual schema. Besides, the relationship between tables is not specified explicitly but implied as a conceptual schema. The predicate in the RDF model denotes the relationship between tables, so the relationships implied by key attributes are redefined explicitly. And hence, based on predicates’ functionality, they are classified into attribute predicate and link predicate, which are explained in the following sections.(1) Attribute Predicate. Attribute predicate signifies the primitive concepts and contains the literal value expressed in value term as TableName.Ci. For instance, VFX-ENGINEER.Name represents the attribute predicate where VFX-ENGINEER is the primitive table and Name is the column header which is expressed in Table 1(a). The attributes of each table are explained as follows. VFX-ENGINEER Table 1(a) contains identification number -ID, engineer name -NAME, assistant engineer ASSISTANT, expertise in which field EXPERTISE, and works for which company DID. VFX-PRODUCT 1(b) table contains product id -PID, engineer who developed the product -VID, role of the engineer -ROLE, and DATE the product developed. PRODUCT Table 1(c) contains product identification number PID, product NAME, product TYPE, and which company hosted the product –HOSTING. COMPANY Table 1(e) contains company id COID, company NAME, and LOCATION. CONTACT-DETAILS Table 1(d) contains engineer id CID, mobile, and mail id. Table 1 shows a sample snap shot of graphics designer database, which is taken for evaluation because all types of relationship exist in this database.Table 1
RDB tables containing RDB-RDF requirements.
(a)
VFX-ENGINEER
IDNAMEDIDASSISTANTEXPERTISEA03Bruce102E15VideoA05Harry101E15ImageA08Ruby102E05SoundA15Mark104E08Photo(b)
VFX-PRODUCT
VIDPIDROLEDATEA03P123Director2017A03P763Staff2016A05P123Director2017A15P763Admin2014(c)
PRODUCT
PIDNAMETYPEHOSTINGP123XGAMEGame101P463TMOVIEMovie102P763CMMovie103P845QMUSICSound103(d)
CONTACT-DETAILS
CIDMOBILEEMAIL-IDA031234567895bruce@gmail.comA053456756478harry@gmail.comA083456211223ruby@gmail.comA153456823453mark@gmail.com(e)
COMPANY
COIDNAMELOCATION101Net-XLondon102M2MBoston103MableLA104KoogleParis(2) Link Predicate. The link predicate derives from foreign key and primary key relationships. Depending upon the target table, link predicates are classified into internal and external links. Internal link predicate is for a recursive relationship, whereas external link predicate is for diverse tables. The object value of the link predicate represents the link equation as TableName.Ci = TableName.Cj. For instance, the column VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT from the VFX-ENGINEER table shown in Table 1(a) becomes an internal link predicate; then, its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT = VFX-ENGINEER.ID, while the column VFX-ENGINEER.DID from the same table becomes an external link predicate, then its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.DID = COMPANY.COID. In the RDF graph model, the link predicate is denoted with ontology vocabulary. The predicates’ relation expression or object value helps in resolving the complex issues created during mapping like foreign key or M:N relationships. The SQL query is created and compiled by SPARQL variables with relation expression or object value terms to access an instance data. The RDB table that contains distinctive features of the relational database is considered without hesitation while translating into the RDF graph.Though the table VFX-PRODUCT is a normalized table, Date and Role attributes are used to demonstrate that the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach manages the difficulties of relationships between tables. The column ASSISTANT of the table VFX-ENGINEER denotes that it is in recursive relation, whereas the proposed method of mapping RDB to RDF of this table is illustrated in Figure3. The comprehensive sight of the complete conceptual mapping at the schema level is characterized in direct mapping without introducing complicated structures. The link predicates efficiently resolve many complicated mapping problems like foreign key relationships with the help of relation expressions which are given in the dotted line in the table of attribute predicate. The common ontology vocabulary is adopted freely as foaf:name. Any new relationship between tables is added without complexity in mapping description. It enables complete conceptualization than straightforward RDB to RDF mapping and generates a new model that is more suitable for LOD.Figure 3
Conceptual schema of RDF for RDB Table1.


### 3.3. Mapping Description (On-Demand Mapping)

The mapping description of the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF method is simple. It is noted from Figure3 that the mapped RDF graph reveals all the mapping information. It is analogous to relation and class definition in ontology development because the resultant RDF graph model is the conceptual schema of a relational database. Instead of a formal definition, the conceptual mapping description is presented to understand the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping clearly. The mapping description of the RDF graph shown in Figure 3 is represented in Table 2.Table 2
Table representation of mapping descriptions of Figure3.
(a)
Column mapping
RDF: propertyRDB.columnData typeNameVFX-Engg.NameCompany.NameProduct.NameLiteralfoaf:nameVFX-Engg.NameLiteralRoleVFX-Product.RoleLiteralMediaProduct.TypeLiteralDateVFX-Product.DateDateAddressCompany.LocationLiteralEmailContact-Details.EmailLiteralPhoneContact-Details.MobileLiteralMajorVFX-Engg.ExpertiseLiteral(b)
Foreign key mapping
PrimarySecondaryJoin.expressionVFX-ENGINEERContact-DetailsVFX-ENGINNER.ID^Contact-Details.CID(c)
Relation mapping
RDF.relationRDB.relationRDB.tableJoin.expressionCollaborateAssistant or coworkVFX-ENGINEERVFX-ENGINEER.Assistant+VFX-ENGINEER.IDWorkWorkVFX-ENGINEER, COMPANYVFX-ENGINEER.DID=Company.COIDAccomplishAccomplishVFX-ENGINEER,VFX-PRODUCTVFX-ENGINEER.ID=VFX-PRODUCT.VIDVFX-PRODUCT.PID=Product.PIDContactContactVFX-ENGINEERVFX-ENGINEER.ID=Contact-Details.CIDAttribute predicate mapping is simple and straightforward, which is noted clearly from Table2(a) column mapping. Several vocabularies in the relational database are mapped into similar ontological vocabulary in mapping description. For instance, Company.Name, VFX-ENGINEER.Name, and Product.Name are mapped as Name in RDF. On the other hand, the correctness of mapping is verified by other predicates while converting it into an RDF graph. Additionally, the widely used ontology like GeoNames and FOAF is imported without any constraint. Hence, it is feasible to redesign and construct more suitable RDF graph from relational database schema. The main advantage of the proposed mapping method is the link predicates. Mapping performed by the join expression, which is shown clearly in Tables 2(b) and 2(c) as foreign-key and relation mapping. It is sensible to explicitly map link predicates with join expression because the resource relations are implemented implicitly with the key types in the relational database tables. Furthermore, join expression helps to resolve the various complex problem created during RDB to RDF mapping. Join expression also facilitates normalization or partition of the complex table relationships for database management in an efficient and simple way. The mapping description contains basic one-to-one correspondence of vocabularies between the relational database and the RDF graph. Many-to-one mapping is also considered as one-to-one correspondence as shown in attribute predicate because the ambiguity is quickly resolved while converting into an RDF graph. It is flexible enough to easily add some valuable ontology vocabularies to realize the proficient model of LOD. In specific, mapping descriptions are easy to implement because of their simplicity. Novel join expression resolves all types of complex relationships.


### 3.4. Data Materialization Using Schema-Based RDB-RDF Approach

In the past decade, many methods were proposed to materialize data. Out of which direct mapping and R2RML produce a significant result. But, it struggles to handle foreign and primary key relationships efficiently. These methods convert relational data into RDF triples with instance level mapping procedure, where every tuple primary key is chosen as subject and constructs the RDF graph. For example, apply the instance level mapping for VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY tables which is mentioned in Table1. The RDF graph generated by these methods is represented in Figure 4. Using the primary key as the subject, and column name as the predicate, and instance cell value as an object existing systems to construct RDF data graph. Similarly, it expands the graph by applying the same rule to other tables of the database. Finally, it produces a complete RDF graph for the relational database. It works well for primary key search, but for nonprimary key search, this instance level mapping approach takes more time for data retrieval. Nowadays, most of the searching process is nonprimary key only. So, it is mandatory to develop such a mechanism to retrieve data quickly for nonprimary key search. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF resolves this issue.Figure 4
RDF graph of VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table using existing instant level mapping.The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach efficiently handles both primary and foreign key relationship. Because of this schema level mapping, it works well for nonprimary key search. It takes lesser data retrieval time for nonprimary key search than the traditional approach. Schema-based RDB-RDF takes a table name as the subject, column as the predicate, and entire column values as the object to construct the RDF graph. The RDF graph generated by the proposed method for VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY tables is shown in Figure5.Figure 5
RDF graph of VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table using proposed schema level mapping.By interpreting the RDF graph generated by the existing and proposed method, it is understandable that the proposed mechanism works faster than existing methods for nonprimary key data retrieval. The advantage of schema level mapping is proved through the following illustrative example. Consider the RDF graph generated by the existing and proposed method from Figures4 and 5. VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table is involved in this scenario. Suppose a user asks for Harry’s company location, the existing instance-level mapping approach traverse so many data nodes and finally gives the information for nonprimary key search. But, the RDB-RDF approach takes less node travel to reach the exact information. The existing method starts traversing from ORG (organization) to the VFX node, and then, it checks each subgraph node one by one. But, in the proposed case from VFX node directly, it moves to the name node and retrieves the data about Harry. The searching process happens quickly because of the appropriate selection of attributes as subject, predicate, and object in schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach.


### 3.5. Architecture of Schema-Based RDB-RDF Mapping (Data Materialization and On-Demand Mapping)

Like direct mapping and R2RML methods, RDB-RDF mapping also duplicates tables of RDB to LOD. It uses schema level mapping instead of instance level which is clearly explained in Section3.4. Because of this technique, the data retrieval time using the proposed method reduced drastically compared to existing methods. The performance comparison of the proposed work is discussed in the next section. This mechanism is called data materialization; it suits well for static data. But nowadays, data changed frequently. To handle dynamic situation, query transformation technique is better instead of materialization. The proposed method incorporates the query transformation part also. As per W3C guidelines, the proposed method supports both data materialization and on-demand mapping, but existing methods support only one of these principles.SPARQL query is transformed directly into SQL query with the help of mapping description, which is discussed in 3.3. It fetches data and converts back into LOD triplets form. Figure6 illustrates the typical structural design of schema-based RDB-RDF mapping. RDB tables and conceptual schema of RDB are mapped into the RDF graph model, which holds table relationships and conceptual structures. To publish RDB data into Linked Open Data, the SPARQL endpoint is executed with a simple relational database interface. The key challenges of traditional mapping methods (RML and S2SML) are robustness and performance efficiency. However, the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method provides robustness by conceptual schema mapping and improves SQL query performance over the relational database content. It implements the SPARQL endpoint with a simple add-on interface without duplicating RDB data.Figure 6
Architecture of schema-based RDB-RDF mapping.


## 3.1. Requirements of Relational Data to RDF Mapping

RDF is a standard framework used in the semantic web to express and interchange information about the web resources, whereas the Linked Open Data (LOD) instances are determined from the RDF. These resources can be people, documents, multimedia data, physical objects, abstract concepts, or anything. In RDF, a triple expression is employed to represent resources as subject–predicate–object. The subject in the triple expression indicates the resource, while the predicate indicates the aspects/traits of the resource and also states the relationship between the object and subject in the expression. An object is a literal value. A connected directed graph or in some applications, undirected graph is used to visualize the instances of the LOD, which are the triples of the RDF graph. This connected directed graph contains edges and nodes. The predicate forms the edges, while the subject and the object in the triples are the nodes of the graph. The sample triples [38] and their corresponding graph are shown in Figure 1. Rio is a person whose friend is Ben. Rio likes Monalisa, which was created by da Vinci. These data are represented as a graph which is shown below.Figure 1
Graph representation of triples—LOD.The Linked Open Data consists of the RDF graph model, while the relational database data are enclosed in the structured table. Based on the requisite analysis of RDB2RDF mapping, it is essential to propose an efficient mapping approach for the heterogeneous system with different query processing mechanisms and constituent elements. Some researchers have also examined formal requirements like information and semantic preservation. After thorough requirement analysis was done with different use cases, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have suggested eleven core requirements and five optional requirements for mapping relational database into its corresponding shared RDF Schema. To sum up the core requirements, the primary concerns of mapping [39–41] are as follows:
(i)
The local vocabularies of a relational database are translated into its correspondent ontology vocabularies. The idea behind mapping the relational database to an RDF graph is to publish the web’s relational database information in the current semantic web format. The mapping approach redefines the column name of the RDB table into its corresponding ontology vocabularies used in LOD efficiently based on the semantic attribute(ii)
The Uniform Resource Identifier URI’s of Linked Open Data is used to identify the mapped RDB resources. Appropriate information of RDF data is obtained by dereferencing the HTTP URI. Therefore, it is mandatory for the mapped RDB data to be in Linked Open Data form(iii)
A complete mapping method is required to translate RDB tables into their equivalent RDF graph (data materialization) and transform SPARQL query into SQL query (on-demand mapping). Thus, the mapping description acts as a mediator for transforming RDB and RDF data(iv)
The RDB to RDF mapping method should be capable enough to manage both foreign key, primary key constraints, and the M:N relationships. Hence, it is essential to construct an RDF graph that acts as the principal mechanism to join and merge RDB tables(v)
Due to normalization, some tables are decomposed for practical purposes, which are used only to merge tables. These normalized tables should be processed by the mapping method since they did not represent the conceptual schema. At any instance, the tables connected by conceptual attributes should be decomposed while mapping into an RDF graph from RDB data to preserve the reliable data modelAfter a complete analysis of the W3C mapping rule, the abovementioned requirements are compulsory to incorporate in data transformation. Conversely, ignore those crucial functionalities. Most of the RDB2RDF mapping method reveals the difficulty of managing foreign key constraints, normalized tables, data retrieval time, and SQL query generation. The limitations of the existing techniques are overcome by the proposed RDB-RDF mapping method efficiently.


## 3.2. Schema-Based Mapping

Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) represents the relational database in a conceptual schema similar to the RDF graph model. Consequently, it is anticipated that RDB-RDF mapping is also based on the Entity-Relationship Diagram of the RDB schema. It provides a reliable way of mapping and preserves the relational database’s conceptual structures and information. An entity in the Entity-Relationship Diagram is the logical object, which is the conceptual element of the RDF Schema class. This can be recognized distinctively in a domain since RDF data in triplets becomes LOD instances generated by RDF Schema classes and properties. The preliminary point for schema-based RDB-RDF mapping is the ERD of the RDB schema. The proposed method presents a superior quality like separation of concerns between instances and schema. Concentrating on the conceptual schema, the proposed mapping approach understands the flawless translation between relational data and LOD instances at the schema level. Like direct mapping, there is no need to state the mapping definition for all instances. So mapping description becomes more concise, and hence, the proposed mapping method is likely to understand each requirement of RDB2RDF mapping.


### 3.2.1. Mapping Relational Database Schema to RDF Graph

The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach is enforced on primitive tables with conceptual attributes but not on relational tables representing only the relationship between tables. Usually, primitive tables are labeled by an entity in Entity-Relational Diagram, while the relational table that is created during the normalization process is inappropriate to the RDF graph. The mapping rules of the proposed method are listed below:(i)
Database to Namespace. The name of the database is mapped into the RDF namespace. It defines the domain terminologies to tables and their columns(ii)
Table Name as Subject. The name of the RDB table is mapped into the RDF subject. In triple expression, the subject refers to a particular resource with URI. In the proposed mapping method, the subject acts as an organizer to make the instances(iii)
Column as Predicate. Column in the RDB table is mapped into predicate of the RDF graph(iv)
Column Values as Object. The cell value of the table.column is mapped into the RDF graph object(v)
Row as Instance. Every row in an RDB table is mapped into its corresponding RDF triplesIn the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the schema of the primitive tables is conserved in the Resource Description Framework graph, which is shown in Figure2. The resultant RDF graph illustrates that the conceptual schema exists by default in the table and not in the data graph of instance triples. The mapped object value is represented by object value term like “table.column.” When the SPARQL query is triggered on RDB table, the instances will be generated based on the RDF graph.Figure 2
RDB-RDF mapping scheme.A table that acts as a resource is mapped into a subject with namespace and renamed to common ontology vocabularies, for example, rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type. The columnCi related to RDF predicates is converted into well-known vocabularies as CAMO, DC, and FOAF, available in http://schema.org. Likewise, schema-based mapping understands the semantic interoperability of the resultant RDF graph with effective mapping descriptions. The predicate’s object value is expressed by the term TableName.Ci. This value term helps to convert the SPARQL query into its corresponding SQL query (on-demand mapping). The subject in RDF triples generally represents a particular resource. But in the proposed schema-based mapping, the subject works as a virtual subject while composing triples. Practically, there is no need to exploit an extra identifier as the subject since their properties recognize the instances. Relatively, the subject in schema-based RDB-RDF mapping represents the class type of instances. Hence, the schema-based mapping method is efficient than traditional direct mapping and R2RML methods in data materialization. It also meets the theoretical requirements of RDB2RDF mapping mentioned earlier and preserves the conceptual schema. The proposed mapping method need not depend upon instances as they are stored in RDB. At any time, they are easily accessed by SQL queries.


### 3.2.2. Predicate Types

To establish the relationship between tables, both the foreign key and the primary key are used. In some cases, both essential attributes are only used to connect tables as they are independent of the conceptual schema. Besides, the relationship between tables is not specified explicitly but implied as a conceptual schema. The predicate in the RDF model denotes the relationship between tables, so the relationships implied by key attributes are redefined explicitly. And hence, based on predicates’ functionality, they are classified into attribute predicate and link predicate, which are explained in the following sections.(1) Attribute Predicate. Attribute predicate signifies the primitive concepts and contains the literal value expressed in value term as TableName.Ci. For instance, VFX-ENGINEER.Name represents the attribute predicate where VFX-ENGINEER is the primitive table and Name is the column header which is expressed in Table 1(a). The attributes of each table are explained as follows. VFX-ENGINEER Table 1(a) contains identification number -ID, engineer name -NAME, assistant engineer ASSISTANT, expertise in which field EXPERTISE, and works for which company DID. VFX-PRODUCT 1(b) table contains product id -PID, engineer who developed the product -VID, role of the engineer -ROLE, and DATE the product developed. PRODUCT Table 1(c) contains product identification number PID, product NAME, product TYPE, and which company hosted the product –HOSTING. COMPANY Table 1(e) contains company id COID, company NAME, and LOCATION. CONTACT-DETAILS Table 1(d) contains engineer id CID, mobile, and mail id. Table 1 shows a sample snap shot of graphics designer database, which is taken for evaluation because all types of relationship exist in this database.Table 1
RDB tables containing RDB-RDF requirements.
(a)
VFX-ENGINEER
IDNAMEDIDASSISTANTEXPERTISEA03Bruce102E15VideoA05Harry101E15ImageA08Ruby102E05SoundA15Mark104E08Photo(b)
VFX-PRODUCT
VIDPIDROLEDATEA03P123Director2017A03P763Staff2016A05P123Director2017A15P763Admin2014(c)
PRODUCT
PIDNAMETYPEHOSTINGP123XGAMEGame101P463TMOVIEMovie102P763CMMovie103P845QMUSICSound103(d)
CONTACT-DETAILS
CIDMOBILEEMAIL-IDA031234567895bruce@gmail.comA053456756478harry@gmail.comA083456211223ruby@gmail.comA153456823453mark@gmail.com(e)
COMPANY
COIDNAMELOCATION101Net-XLondon102M2MBoston103MableLA104KoogleParis(2) Link Predicate. The link predicate derives from foreign key and primary key relationships. Depending upon the target table, link predicates are classified into internal and external links. Internal link predicate is for a recursive relationship, whereas external link predicate is for diverse tables. The object value of the link predicate represents the link equation as TableName.Ci = TableName.Cj. For instance, the column VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT from the VFX-ENGINEER table shown in Table 1(a) becomes an internal link predicate; then, its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT = VFX-ENGINEER.ID, while the column VFX-ENGINEER.DID from the same table becomes an external link predicate, then its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.DID = COMPANY.COID. In the RDF graph model, the link predicate is denoted with ontology vocabulary. The predicates’ relation expression or object value helps in resolving the complex issues created during mapping like foreign key or M:N relationships. The SQL query is created and compiled by SPARQL variables with relation expression or object value terms to access an instance data. The RDB table that contains distinctive features of the relational database is considered without hesitation while translating into the RDF graph.Though the table VFX-PRODUCT is a normalized table, Date and Role attributes are used to demonstrate that the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach manages the difficulties of relationships between tables. The column ASSISTANT of the table VFX-ENGINEER denotes that it is in recursive relation, whereas the proposed method of mapping RDB to RDF of this table is illustrated in Figure3. The comprehensive sight of the complete conceptual mapping at the schema level is characterized in direct mapping without introducing complicated structures. The link predicates efficiently resolve many complicated mapping problems like foreign key relationships with the help of relation expressions which are given in the dotted line in the table of attribute predicate. The common ontology vocabulary is adopted freely as foaf:name. Any new relationship between tables is added without complexity in mapping description. It enables complete conceptualization than straightforward RDB to RDF mapping and generates a new model that is more suitable for LOD.Figure 3
Conceptual schema of RDF for RDB Table1.


## 3.2.1. Mapping Relational Database Schema to RDF Graph

The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach is enforced on primitive tables with conceptual attributes but not on relational tables representing only the relationship between tables. Usually, primitive tables are labeled by an entity in Entity-Relational Diagram, while the relational table that is created during the normalization process is inappropriate to the RDF graph. The mapping rules of the proposed method are listed below:(i)
Database to Namespace. The name of the database is mapped into the RDF namespace. It defines the domain terminologies to tables and their columns(ii)
Table Name as Subject. The name of the RDB table is mapped into the RDF subject. In triple expression, the subject refers to a particular resource with URI. In the proposed mapping method, the subject acts as an organizer to make the instances(iii)
Column as Predicate. Column in the RDB table is mapped into predicate of the RDF graph(iv)
Column Values as Object. The cell value of the table.column is mapped into the RDF graph object(v)
Row as Instance. Every row in an RDB table is mapped into its corresponding RDF triplesIn the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the schema of the primitive tables is conserved in the Resource Description Framework graph, which is shown in Figure2. The resultant RDF graph illustrates that the conceptual schema exists by default in the table and not in the data graph of instance triples. The mapped object value is represented by object value term like “table.column.” When the SPARQL query is triggered on RDB table, the instances will be generated based on the RDF graph.Figure 2
RDB-RDF mapping scheme.A table that acts as a resource is mapped into a subject with namespace and renamed to common ontology vocabularies, for example, rdfs:subClassOf and rdf:type. The columnCi related to RDF predicates is converted into well-known vocabularies as CAMO, DC, and FOAF, available in http://schema.org. Likewise, schema-based mapping understands the semantic interoperability of the resultant RDF graph with effective mapping descriptions. The predicate’s object value is expressed by the term TableName.Ci. This value term helps to convert the SPARQL query into its corresponding SQL query (on-demand mapping). The subject in RDF triples generally represents a particular resource. But in the proposed schema-based mapping, the subject works as a virtual subject while composing triples. Practically, there is no need to exploit an extra identifier as the subject since their properties recognize the instances. Relatively, the subject in schema-based RDB-RDF mapping represents the class type of instances. Hence, the schema-based mapping method is efficient than traditional direct mapping and R2RML methods in data materialization. It also meets the theoretical requirements of RDB2RDF mapping mentioned earlier and preserves the conceptual schema. The proposed mapping method need not depend upon instances as they are stored in RDB. At any time, they are easily accessed by SQL queries.


## 3.2.2. Predicate Types

To establish the relationship between tables, both the foreign key and the primary key are used. In some cases, both essential attributes are only used to connect tables as they are independent of the conceptual schema. Besides, the relationship between tables is not specified explicitly but implied as a conceptual schema. The predicate in the RDF model denotes the relationship between tables, so the relationships implied by key attributes are redefined explicitly. And hence, based on predicates’ functionality, they are classified into attribute predicate and link predicate, which are explained in the following sections.(1) Attribute Predicate. Attribute predicate signifies the primitive concepts and contains the literal value expressed in value term as TableName.Ci. For instance, VFX-ENGINEER.Name represents the attribute predicate where VFX-ENGINEER is the primitive table and Name is the column header which is expressed in Table 1(a). The attributes of each table are explained as follows. VFX-ENGINEER Table 1(a) contains identification number -ID, engineer name -NAME, assistant engineer ASSISTANT, expertise in which field EXPERTISE, and works for which company DID. VFX-PRODUCT 1(b) table contains product id -PID, engineer who developed the product -VID, role of the engineer -ROLE, and DATE the product developed. PRODUCT Table 1(c) contains product identification number PID, product NAME, product TYPE, and which company hosted the product –HOSTING. COMPANY Table 1(e) contains company id COID, company NAME, and LOCATION. CONTACT-DETAILS Table 1(d) contains engineer id CID, mobile, and mail id. Table 1 shows a sample snap shot of graphics designer database, which is taken for evaluation because all types of relationship exist in this database.Table 1
RDB tables containing RDB-RDF requirements.
(a)
VFX-ENGINEER
IDNAMEDIDASSISTANTEXPERTISEA03Bruce102E15VideoA05Harry101E15ImageA08Ruby102E05SoundA15Mark104E08Photo(b)
VFX-PRODUCT
VIDPIDROLEDATEA03P123Director2017A03P763Staff2016A05P123Director2017A15P763Admin2014(c)
PRODUCT
PIDNAMETYPEHOSTINGP123XGAMEGame101P463TMOVIEMovie102P763CMMovie103P845QMUSICSound103(d)
CONTACT-DETAILS
CIDMOBILEEMAIL-IDA031234567895bruce@gmail.comA053456756478harry@gmail.comA083456211223ruby@gmail.comA153456823453mark@gmail.com(e)
COMPANY
COIDNAMELOCATION101Net-XLondon102M2MBoston103MableLA104KoogleParis(2) Link Predicate. The link predicate derives from foreign key and primary key relationships. Depending upon the target table, link predicates are classified into internal and external links. Internal link predicate is for a recursive relationship, whereas external link predicate is for diverse tables. The object value of the link predicate represents the link equation as TableName.Ci = TableName.Cj. For instance, the column VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT from the VFX-ENGINEER table shown in Table 1(a) becomes an internal link predicate; then, its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.ASSISTANT = VFX-ENGINEER.ID, while the column VFX-ENGINEER.DID from the same table becomes an external link predicate, then its object value is VFX-ENGINEER.DID = COMPANY.COID. In the RDF graph model, the link predicate is denoted with ontology vocabulary. The predicates’ relation expression or object value helps in resolving the complex issues created during mapping like foreign key or M:N relationships. The SQL query is created and compiled by SPARQL variables with relation expression or object value terms to access an instance data. The RDB table that contains distinctive features of the relational database is considered without hesitation while translating into the RDF graph.Though the table VFX-PRODUCT is a normalized table, Date and Role attributes are used to demonstrate that the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach manages the difficulties of relationships between tables. The column ASSISTANT of the table VFX-ENGINEER denotes that it is in recursive relation, whereas the proposed method of mapping RDB to RDF of this table is illustrated in Figure3. The comprehensive sight of the complete conceptual mapping at the schema level is characterized in direct mapping without introducing complicated structures. The link predicates efficiently resolve many complicated mapping problems like foreign key relationships with the help of relation expressions which are given in the dotted line in the table of attribute predicate. The common ontology vocabulary is adopted freely as foaf:name. Any new relationship between tables is added without complexity in mapping description. It enables complete conceptualization than straightforward RDB to RDF mapping and generates a new model that is more suitable for LOD.Figure 3
Conceptual schema of RDF for RDB Table1.


## 3.3. Mapping Description (On-Demand Mapping)

The mapping description of the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF method is simple. It is noted from Figure3 that the mapped RDF graph reveals all the mapping information. It is analogous to relation and class definition in ontology development because the resultant RDF graph model is the conceptual schema of a relational database. Instead of a formal definition, the conceptual mapping description is presented to understand the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping clearly. The mapping description of the RDF graph shown in Figure 3 is represented in Table 2.Table 2
Table representation of mapping descriptions of Figure3.
(a)
Column mapping
RDF: propertyRDB.columnData typeNameVFX-Engg.NameCompany.NameProduct.NameLiteralfoaf:nameVFX-Engg.NameLiteralRoleVFX-Product.RoleLiteralMediaProduct.TypeLiteralDateVFX-Product.DateDateAddressCompany.LocationLiteralEmailContact-Details.EmailLiteralPhoneContact-Details.MobileLiteralMajorVFX-Engg.ExpertiseLiteral(b)
Foreign key mapping
PrimarySecondaryJoin.expressionVFX-ENGINEERContact-DetailsVFX-ENGINNER.ID^Contact-Details.CID(c)
Relation mapping
RDF.relationRDB.relationRDB.tableJoin.expressionCollaborateAssistant or coworkVFX-ENGINEERVFX-ENGINEER.Assistant+VFX-ENGINEER.IDWorkWorkVFX-ENGINEER, COMPANYVFX-ENGINEER.DID=Company.COIDAccomplishAccomplishVFX-ENGINEER,VFX-PRODUCTVFX-ENGINEER.ID=VFX-PRODUCT.VIDVFX-PRODUCT.PID=Product.PIDContactContactVFX-ENGINEERVFX-ENGINEER.ID=Contact-Details.CIDAttribute predicate mapping is simple and straightforward, which is noted clearly from Table2(a) column mapping. Several vocabularies in the relational database are mapped into similar ontological vocabulary in mapping description. For instance, Company.Name, VFX-ENGINEER.Name, and Product.Name are mapped as Name in RDF. On the other hand, the correctness of mapping is verified by other predicates while converting it into an RDF graph. Additionally, the widely used ontology like GeoNames and FOAF is imported without any constraint. Hence, it is feasible to redesign and construct more suitable RDF graph from relational database schema. The main advantage of the proposed mapping method is the link predicates. Mapping performed by the join expression, which is shown clearly in Tables 2(b) and 2(c) as foreign-key and relation mapping. It is sensible to explicitly map link predicates with join expression because the resource relations are implemented implicitly with the key types in the relational database tables. Furthermore, join expression helps to resolve the various complex problem created during RDB to RDF mapping. Join expression also facilitates normalization or partition of the complex table relationships for database management in an efficient and simple way. The mapping description contains basic one-to-one correspondence of vocabularies between the relational database and the RDF graph. Many-to-one mapping is also considered as one-to-one correspondence as shown in attribute predicate because the ambiguity is quickly resolved while converting into an RDF graph. It is flexible enough to easily add some valuable ontology vocabularies to realize the proficient model of LOD. In specific, mapping descriptions are easy to implement because of their simplicity. Novel join expression resolves all types of complex relationships.


## 3.4. Data Materialization Using Schema-Based RDB-RDF Approach

In the past decade, many methods were proposed to materialize data. Out of which direct mapping and R2RML produce a significant result. But, it struggles to handle foreign and primary key relationships efficiently. These methods convert relational data into RDF triples with instance level mapping procedure, where every tuple primary key is chosen as subject and constructs the RDF graph. For example, apply the instance level mapping for VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY tables which is mentioned in Table1. The RDF graph generated by these methods is represented in Figure 4. Using the primary key as the subject, and column name as the predicate, and instance cell value as an object existing systems to construct RDF data graph. Similarly, it expands the graph by applying the same rule to other tables of the database. Finally, it produces a complete RDF graph for the relational database. It works well for primary key search, but for nonprimary key search, this instance level mapping approach takes more time for data retrieval. Nowadays, most of the searching process is nonprimary key only. So, it is mandatory to develop such a mechanism to retrieve data quickly for nonprimary key search. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF resolves this issue.Figure 4
RDF graph of VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table using existing instant level mapping.The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach efficiently handles both primary and foreign key relationship. Because of this schema level mapping, it works well for nonprimary key search. It takes lesser data retrieval time for nonprimary key search than the traditional approach. Schema-based RDB-RDF takes a table name as the subject, column as the predicate, and entire column values as the object to construct the RDF graph. The RDF graph generated by the proposed method for VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY tables is shown in Figure5.Figure 5
RDF graph of VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table using proposed schema level mapping.By interpreting the RDF graph generated by the existing and proposed method, it is understandable that the proposed mechanism works faster than existing methods for nonprimary key data retrieval. The advantage of schema level mapping is proved through the following illustrative example. Consider the RDF graph generated by the existing and proposed method from Figures4 and 5. VFX-ENGINEER and COMPANY table is involved in this scenario. Suppose a user asks for Harry’s company location, the existing instance-level mapping approach traverse so many data nodes and finally gives the information for nonprimary key search. But, the RDB-RDF approach takes less node travel to reach the exact information. The existing method starts traversing from ORG (organization) to the VFX node, and then, it checks each subgraph node one by one. But, in the proposed case from VFX node directly, it moves to the name node and retrieves the data about Harry. The searching process happens quickly because of the appropriate selection of attributes as subject, predicate, and object in schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach.


## 3.5. Architecture of Schema-Based RDB-RDF Mapping (Data Materialization and On-Demand Mapping)

Like direct mapping and R2RML methods, RDB-RDF mapping also duplicates tables of RDB to LOD. It uses schema level mapping instead of instance level which is clearly explained in Section3.4. Because of this technique, the data retrieval time using the proposed method reduced drastically compared to existing methods. The performance comparison of the proposed work is discussed in the next section. This mechanism is called data materialization; it suits well for static data. But nowadays, data changed frequently. To handle dynamic situation, query transformation technique is better instead of materialization. The proposed method incorporates the query transformation part also. As per W3C guidelines, the proposed method supports both data materialization and on-demand mapping, but existing methods support only one of these principles.SPARQL query is transformed directly into SQL query with the help of mapping description, which is discussed in 3.3. It fetches data and converts back into LOD triplets form. Figure6 illustrates the typical structural design of schema-based RDB-RDF mapping. RDB tables and conceptual schema of RDB are mapped into the RDF graph model, which holds table relationships and conceptual structures. To publish RDB data into Linked Open Data, the SPARQL endpoint is executed with a simple relational database interface. The key challenges of traditional mapping methods (RML and S2SML) are robustness and performance efficiency. However, the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method provides robustness by conceptual schema mapping and improves SQL query performance over the relational database content. It implements the SPARQL endpoint with a simple add-on interface without duplicating RDB data.Figure 6
Architecture of schema-based RDB-RDF mapping.


## 4. Results and Discussion

In the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the mapped RDF graph is denoted by the conceptual schema of a relational database, which is the primary resource to generate SPARQL query. The mapped RDF graph supports conceptual thinking, which paves way to create SPARQL queries efficiently. Since an equivalent conceptual schema is utilized for SQL and SPARQL queries, query transformation is done effectively in proposed technique. And at the same time, data conversion from relational tables to triples has also done correctly. The effective performance of proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping is demonstrated through the use cases of SPARQL queries for on-demand mapping and time comparison for data retrieval in data materialization. Graphics designer database is taken for experimental purpose. It contains one lakh tuples of record for evaluation. This database contains five tables with all types of primary and foreign key relationships which is shown in Table1. The proposed technique is implemented using Turtle language and evaluated on core i5 3.1 GHz processor with 8 GB ram and 1 TB SSD.


### 4.1. Foreign Key Relationships between Tables

Though various research has been performed and different solutions have been proposed, the foreign key and primary key problem remains a challenge in RDB to RDF mapping. Some of the existing mapping descriptions are too complex to execute in real operational databases. On the other hand, in the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the relationship between foreign keys is represented explicitly in the resultant RDF graph model. The mapping method is defined thoroughly in the mapping description as join expressions. In this way, an implicit relationship between foreign keys in a relational database is solved efficiently. For instance, a user raised a query “What company does Bruce works in?” for which the proposed mapping method constructs a SPARQL query which is shown in Figure7. Constructing SPARQL query from the resultant mapped RDF graph model becomes easier due to schema level mapping. From the mapping description, “Bruce” as foaf:name has the object value term VFX-ENGINEER.NAME, and the link predicate VFX-ENGINEER.DID = COMPANY.COID has join expression, respectively. In a sequence, the predicate name between ?y and ?z is deduced to COMPANY.NAME. Accordingly, SPARQL queries are easily translated into SQL queries, which is shown in Figure 7.Figure 7
Foreign key relationship.Some RDB tables are only for database management purposes, and there is no relation to the conceptual schema. These tables got from normalization process. For example, consider CONTACT-DETAILS table which is split from the master table shown in Table1. It is natural to join CONTACT-DETAILS with the master table VFX-ENGINEER. In the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, tables are combined easily by join expressions required for the desirable RDF data model. As shown in Figure 8, it is possible to combine the table CONTACT-DETAILS with VFX-ENGINEER by RDF query graph.Figure 8
Combining tables with foreign key.The subject ?x is associated with both CONTACT-DETAILS and VFX-ENGINEER table through predicate, and predicate name is determined by VFX-ENGINEER.NAME, as shown in Figure 8. As of the mapping description given in Table 2 and with join expression, SQL queries are obtained easily from the SPARQL query. Most of the issues in mapping RDB to RDF graph are solved by introducing join expression in the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method. Every complicated mapping issue is accommodated by mapping description. Hence, it is more flexible to duplicate RDB data than rigid mapping.


### 4.2. Recursive Relationship

The recursive relationships are easy to execute in relational database as well as in the RDF graph due to the availability of mapping descriptions. Even though a few mapping methods suggest possible solutions, they also accompany unpractical and inefficient challenges. But, schema-based mapping quickly deals with this kind of problem with the help of join expressions. The recursive relationship can be modeled, which is shown in Figure9. The query with the recursive relationship contained in the table VFX-ENGINEER is “Who is the assistant for Bruce?”. The recursive relationships are analogous to foreign key relationships. The joint expression ‘collaborate’ to ‘coworker’ is obtained from the mapping description, which generates SQL queries from SPARQL, as shown in Figure 9. Hence, recursive mapping is done efficiently by proposed approach.Figure 9
Example of recursive relationship.


### 4.3. Relationship between Multiple Tables

There is no odd mapping the SPARQL query related to different tables in the schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method. As usual, the join expressions available in the mapping description help to solve complicated table management. As shown in Figure10, the tables associated with the SPARQL query are recognized by link predicates like CONTACT-DETAILS and WORK. Further, the process involved in joining tables for SQL queries is made with join expression in mapping descriptions. Though SPARQL uses the same predicates as the name ?x and ?y, the uncertainty is solved with other predicate mapping information. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method is flexible enough to utilize ontology vocabularies. Here, “Bruce” contact details and company details are retrieved by merging COMPANY, CONTACT-DETAILS, and VFX-ENGINEER tables. SPARQL query construction and translation into SQL are done efficiently with mapping description and join expression.Figure 10
Multitable relationship.


### 4.4. Multiple Tables with M:N Relationships

In the proposed method, other relationship between tables that is included as link predicate like “accomplish” is exposed in Figure3. It contains several join operations and M:N relationships. Despite the difficulties of additional relationships, they are managed by the proposed RDB-RDF as usual like other link predicates. Though the query mentioned in Figure 11 includes additional link predicate such as accomplish, RDB-RDF resolves it and translates SPARQL to SQL query as usual with join expressions available in mapping description. The outcome of the SQL query is “Bruce” developed which product, that product type and his role in the development of that product by merging VFX-ENGINEER, VFX-PRODUCT, and PRODUCT tables.Figure 11
Multiple tables with M:N relationships.


### 4.5. Merged and Joined Tables with M:N Relationships

The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method properly translates the complex SPARQL query into its corresponding SQL query. An example shown in Figure12 is theoretically intuitive and appropriate for LOD. Here, many tables are involved in retrieving the data such as VFX-ENGINEER, CONTACT-DETAILS, VFX-PRODUCT, and PRODUCT. The variable ?a is associated with the table CONTACT-DETAILS; it implicitly joins and merges with the table VFX-ENGINEER. Similarly, variable ?b which is associated with table VFX-PRODUCT initially mediates the relationship between foreign key and primary key by normalization. It also contains its own attributes.Figure 12
Merged and joined tables with M:N relationships.Further, “accomplish” is the link predicate associated with variable ?y which reduces relation and merges various RDB relations. The associated tables are identified systematically with the help of join expressions available in the mapping description. After determining the variables and predicates, SQL queries are effortlessly composed as given in Figure12. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method helps constructing SPARQL query naturally, which is sufficient for LOD applications and presents an effective way for SQL query mapping. Thus, it is feasible to execute the SPARQL endpoint in the relational database and crucial to publish data of the relational database to LOD sets. The time complexity of the proposed method for both data materialization and on-demand mapping is O(n), whereas for the existing methods are O(n log(n)). This time complexity is for graphics designer database with one lakh records. Based on the number of tuples and number of attributes in database, the time complexity will vary in existing methods as well as in the proposed method. Testing done with increased tuples, attributes and decreased tuples, attributes in graphics designer database. The outcome is that proposed mapping technique takes lesser time for data retrieval and query transformation than existing methods.


### 4.6. Comparative Analysis of Query Evaluation

In the query processing phase, a query is translated from SPARQL to SQL, and data is retrieved in the form of SQL. Finally, it was converted into triplets (RDF format). The query evaluation for various join operation is performed, and its result is shown in Table3. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach takes less time for query evaluation than existing methods.Table 3
Query evaluation comparison (on-demand mapping).
MethodQuery evaluation time (time in ms)Foreign key Equi-joinNatural joinRecursive relationMultitable and M:N relationS2SML9318898241378Fsparql2sql8938658081316RML8748327931247RDB-RDF (proposed method)7917687141168Transformation time for Equi-Join query by proposed methodology is 791 milliseconds (ms), but existing methods took 874 ms (RML), 893 ms (Fsparql2sql), and 931 ms (S2SML). For natural join operation proposed method takes 768 ms, but existing methods took 832 ms (RML), 865 ms (Fsparql2sql), and 889 ms (S2SML). Similarly, for other types of join operations, proposed mapping approach takes lesser query evaluation time than existing approaches which is observed from Table3. Query processing time is 6.76% improvised in the RDB-RDF method.


### 4.7. Comparative Analysis of Time Taken for Data Materialization

The schema-based RDB-RDF mapping mechanism is applied for the relational database shown in Table1. Only partial data is kept in that table for understanding purposes, but it actually contains one lakh tuples. The time taken for data retrieval is given in Table 4 for a comparative analysis of the proposed method with other related techniques. Three different join operations are taken for comparative analysis such as Self-Join, Equi-Join, and Multi-Join. Existing methods like direct mapping, augmented direct mapping, and R2RML are considered for data retrieval time comparison with the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping.Table 4
Data retrieval time comparison (data materialization).
MethodJoin operationsSelf-Join (time in ms)Equi-Join (time in ms)Multitable M:N relations (time in ms)Direct mapping523705930Augmented direct mapping464632847R2RML407568721RDB-RDF (proposed method)361437615From Table4, it is noted that the proposed mapping method takes 361 milliseconds (ms) for Self-Join operation whereas existing DM takes 523 ms, Augmented DM takes 464 ms, and R2RML takes 407 ms. Similarly, for other types of join operations, proposed mapping approach takes lesser data retrieval time than existing approaches which is shown in Table 4. R2RML, Augmented DM, and direct mapping methods take more data retrieval time than proposed RDB-RDF. Data retrieval time is 12.74% improvised in proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach.


## 4.1. Foreign Key Relationships between Tables

Though various research has been performed and different solutions have been proposed, the foreign key and primary key problem remains a challenge in RDB to RDF mapping. Some of the existing mapping descriptions are too complex to execute in real operational databases. On the other hand, in the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, the relationship between foreign keys is represented explicitly in the resultant RDF graph model. The mapping method is defined thoroughly in the mapping description as join expressions. In this way, an implicit relationship between foreign keys in a relational database is solved efficiently. For instance, a user raised a query “What company does Bruce works in?” for which the proposed mapping method constructs a SPARQL query which is shown in Figure7. Constructing SPARQL query from the resultant mapped RDF graph model becomes easier due to schema level mapping. From the mapping description, “Bruce” as foaf:name has the object value term VFX-ENGINEER.NAME, and the link predicate VFX-ENGINEER.DID = COMPANY.COID has join expression, respectively. In a sequence, the predicate name between ?y and ?z is deduced to COMPANY.NAME. Accordingly, SPARQL queries are easily translated into SQL queries, which is shown in Figure 7.Figure 7
Foreign key relationship.Some RDB tables are only for database management purposes, and there is no relation to the conceptual schema. These tables got from normalization process. For example, consider CONTACT-DETAILS table which is split from the master table shown in Table1. It is natural to join CONTACT-DETAILS with the master table VFX-ENGINEER. In the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping, tables are combined easily by join expressions required for the desirable RDF data model. As shown in Figure 8, it is possible to combine the table CONTACT-DETAILS with VFX-ENGINEER by RDF query graph.Figure 8
Combining tables with foreign key.The subject ?x is associated with both CONTACT-DETAILS and VFX-ENGINEER table through predicate, and predicate name is determined by VFX-ENGINEER.NAME, as shown in Figure 8. As of the mapping description given in Table 2 and with join expression, SQL queries are obtained easily from the SPARQL query. Most of the issues in mapping RDB to RDF graph are solved by introducing join expression in the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method. Every complicated mapping issue is accommodated by mapping description. Hence, it is more flexible to duplicate RDB data than rigid mapping.


## 4.2. Recursive Relationship

The recursive relationships are easy to execute in relational database as well as in the RDF graph due to the availability of mapping descriptions. Even though a few mapping methods suggest possible solutions, they also accompany unpractical and inefficient challenges. But, schema-based mapping quickly deals with this kind of problem with the help of join expressions. The recursive relationship can be modeled, which is shown in Figure9. The query with the recursive relationship contained in the table VFX-ENGINEER is “Who is the assistant for Bruce?”. The recursive relationships are analogous to foreign key relationships. The joint expression ‘collaborate’ to ‘coworker’ is obtained from the mapping description, which generates SQL queries from SPARQL, as shown in Figure 9. Hence, recursive mapping is done efficiently by proposed approach.Figure 9
Example of recursive relationship.


## 4.3. Relationship between Multiple Tables

There is no odd mapping the SPARQL query related to different tables in the schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method. As usual, the join expressions available in the mapping description help to solve complicated table management. As shown in Figure10, the tables associated with the SPARQL query are recognized by link predicates like CONTACT-DETAILS and WORK. Further, the process involved in joining tables for SQL queries is made with join expression in mapping descriptions. Though SPARQL uses the same predicates as the name ?x and ?y, the uncertainty is solved with other predicate mapping information. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method is flexible enough to utilize ontology vocabularies. Here, “Bruce” contact details and company details are retrieved by merging COMPANY, CONTACT-DETAILS, and VFX-ENGINEER tables. SPARQL query construction and translation into SQL are done efficiently with mapping description and join expression.Figure 10
Multitable relationship.


## 4.4. Multiple Tables with M:N Relationships

In the proposed method, other relationship between tables that is included as link predicate like “accomplish” is exposed in Figure3. It contains several join operations and M:N relationships. Despite the difficulties of additional relationships, they are managed by the proposed RDB-RDF as usual like other link predicates. Though the query mentioned in Figure 11 includes additional link predicate such as accomplish, RDB-RDF resolves it and translates SPARQL to SQL query as usual with join expressions available in mapping description. The outcome of the SQL query is “Bruce” developed which product, that product type and his role in the development of that product by merging VFX-ENGINEER, VFX-PRODUCT, and PRODUCT tables.Figure 11
Multiple tables with M:N relationships.


## 4.5. Merged and Joined Tables with M:N Relationships

The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method properly translates the complex SPARQL query into its corresponding SQL query. An example shown in Figure12 is theoretically intuitive and appropriate for LOD. Here, many tables are involved in retrieving the data such as VFX-ENGINEER, CONTACT-DETAILS, VFX-PRODUCT, and PRODUCT. The variable ?a is associated with the table CONTACT-DETAILS; it implicitly joins and merges with the table VFX-ENGINEER. Similarly, variable ?b which is associated with table VFX-PRODUCT initially mediates the relationship between foreign key and primary key by normalization. It also contains its own attributes.Figure 12
Merged and joined tables with M:N relationships.Further, “accomplish” is the link predicate associated with variable ?y which reduces relation and merges various RDB relations. The associated tables are identified systematically with the help of join expressions available in the mapping description. After determining the variables and predicates, SQL queries are effortlessly composed as given in Figure12. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method helps constructing SPARQL query naturally, which is sufficient for LOD applications and presents an effective way for SQL query mapping. Thus, it is feasible to execute the SPARQL endpoint in the relational database and crucial to publish data of the relational database to LOD sets. The time complexity of the proposed method for both data materialization and on-demand mapping is O(n), whereas for the existing methods are O(n log(n)). This time complexity is for graphics designer database with one lakh records. Based on the number of tuples and number of attributes in database, the time complexity will vary in existing methods as well as in the proposed method. Testing done with increased tuples, attributes and decreased tuples, attributes in graphics designer database. The outcome is that proposed mapping technique takes lesser time for data retrieval and query transformation than existing methods.


## 4.6. Comparative Analysis of Query Evaluation

In the query processing phase, a query is translated from SPARQL to SQL, and data is retrieved in the form of SQL. Finally, it was converted into triplets (RDF format). The query evaluation for various join operation is performed, and its result is shown in Table3. The proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach takes less time for query evaluation than existing methods.Table 3
Query evaluation comparison (on-demand mapping).
MethodQuery evaluation time (time in ms)Foreign key Equi-joinNatural joinRecursive relationMultitable and M:N relationS2SML9318898241378Fsparql2sql8938658081316RML8748327931247RDB-RDF (proposed method)7917687141168Transformation time for Equi-Join query by proposed methodology is 791 milliseconds (ms), but existing methods took 874 ms (RML), 893 ms (Fsparql2sql), and 931 ms (S2SML). For natural join operation proposed method takes 768 ms, but existing methods took 832 ms (RML), 865 ms (Fsparql2sql), and 889 ms (S2SML). Similarly, for other types of join operations, proposed mapping approach takes lesser query evaluation time than existing approaches which is observed from Table3. Query processing time is 6.76% improvised in the RDB-RDF method.


## 4.7. Comparative Analysis of Time Taken for Data Materialization

The schema-based RDB-RDF mapping mechanism is applied for the relational database shown in Table1. Only partial data is kept in that table for understanding purposes, but it actually contains one lakh tuples. The time taken for data retrieval is given in Table 4 for a comparative analysis of the proposed method with other related techniques. Three different join operations are taken for comparative analysis such as Self-Join, Equi-Join, and Multi-Join. Existing methods like direct mapping, augmented direct mapping, and R2RML are considered for data retrieval time comparison with the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping.Table 4
Data retrieval time comparison (data materialization).
MethodJoin operationsSelf-Join (time in ms)Equi-Join (time in ms)Multitable M:N relations (time in ms)Direct mapping523705930Augmented direct mapping464632847R2RML407568721RDB-RDF (proposed method)361437615From Table4, it is noted that the proposed mapping method takes 361 milliseconds (ms) for Self-Join operation whereas existing DM takes 523 ms, Augmented DM takes 464 ms, and R2RML takes 407 ms. Similarly, for other types of join operations, proposed mapping approach takes lesser data retrieval time than existing approaches which is shown in Table 4. R2RML, Augmented DM, and direct mapping methods take more data retrieval time than proposed RDB-RDF. Data retrieval time is 12.74% improvised in proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach.


## 5. Conclusion and Future Work

An efficient way to populate LOD dataset is by publishing RDB data on the web as an RDF data graph. Various studies have been performed on mapping RDB to RDF to understand the Web of Data. Methods like DM, R2RML (data materialization) and RML, S2SML (on-demand mapping) already exist for data conversion. However, the practical approach of mapping RDB to RDF is still an open challenge. A noble mapping method that suits well for LOD at the conceptual level is schema-based RDB-RDF mapping. Mapping is possible because the ontological domain modeling of RDF and the conceptual schema of RDB look similar. By dissolving structural and operational differences like JOIN operations and graph pattern matching, the proposed schema-based RDB-RDF mapping method achieves more rational mapping than traditional mapping methods. Considering the compatible conceptual structures, mapping descriptions are simple, and hence, it effectively holds the complex relationships. Furthermore, the schema-based RDB-RDF mapping approach is easy to implement and intuitive as observed in different occasions. Therefore, the schema-based RDB-RDF mapping provides an effective mode to execute the SPARQL endpoint into a relational database, which is essential to publish LOD. Also, in the data materialization process, RDB-RDF converts the entire traditional data to an RDF data graph efficiently compared with existing methods. Many applications like recommender system, health care system, resource discovery, and so on got benefited by using this enriched semantic data or Linked Open Data. In future, investigation will be done on ontology design patterns and linked data patterns for further improvisation of mapping RDF data graph. A mechanism will be developed in future which integrates the related data from different formats and converts it into RDF, which is the machine readable format of the recent applications.



---

*Source: 8567894-2021-11-10.xml*