=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3339/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Fostering a Lively and Tenacious Web of Data
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3339/paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3339
|authors=Aidan Hogan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/semweb/Hogan22
}}
==Fostering a Lively and Tenacious Web of Data==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3339/paper1.pdf
Fostering a Lively and Tenacious Web of Data
Aidan Hogan1,*
1
IMFD; DCC, Universidad de Chile
Abstract
While the Web of Data continues to mature, it can still suffer from inertia (being slow to change) and
impermanence (losing track of the past). Addressing these two flaws in a meaningful way requires
additional work to better understand and harness dynamics on the Web of Data, not only in terms of
data, but also in terms of queries, links, websites, definitions, demands, etc. In this paper, we highlight
key challenges relating to dynamics on the Web of Data. We outline issues for the Web of Data that
may arise if such challenges are left neglected: stale or forgotten data, incorrect results, unchecked
vandalism, biased conclusions, etc. We discuss research lines to address such challenges relating to
representations, modelling, prediction, etc. Within these research lines we identify key trade-offs, a
better understanding of which may help us to transition towards a more lively and tenacious Web of
Data that is better equipped to serve a changing world.
Keywords
Web of Data, Dynamics, RDF, Linked Data
1. Introduction
The Web of Data is a vision nearly as old as the Web itself [1], wherein data are published in
structured formats that allow for increased levels of automation in everyday tasks [2]. More
than two decades on, various foundational parts of the puzzle are now in place to realise a
particular instance of this vision, called the Semantic Web. We have RDF [3], in various flavours,
for publishing data on the Web in an interoperable way. We have RDFS [4] and OWL [5] for
defining the vocabulary used in RDF data in a declarative manner, enabling automated inference.
We have SPARQL [6] for evaluating complex queries over RDF datasets from across the Web.
And we have languages such as SHACL [7] and ShEx [8] that allow for defining declarative
constraints and validating elements of RDF data with respect to those constraints. We have also
seen two major initiatives putting these standards into practice on the Web. The first initiative,
Linked Data [9], has resulted in hundreds of large-scale interlinked datasets being published on
the Web using the Semantic Web standards [9]. The second initiative, Embedded Metadata, has
seen the RDF-based formats RDFa [10] and JSON-LD [11] being used on an estimated 44.2% and
37.7% of accessible websites, respectively,1 using vocabularies such as that of schema.org [12].
MEPDaW’22 – Managing the Evolution and Preservation of the Data Web
*
Corresponding author.
$ ahogan@dcc.uchile.cl (A. Hogan)
https://aidanhogan.org/ (A. Hogan)
0000-0001-9482-1982 (A. Hogan)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
1
According to https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/structured_data, as of the time of writing (2022-12-27).
These achievements are just some of the fruits of more than two decades of planning, research,
development, discussion and pondering about the Web of Data.
The vision of the Web of Data espoused several decades ago has, in a very tangible sense,
already been realised to a significant extent. However, this emerging Web of Data is still in its
infancy – or perhaps adolescence – and has a long (possibly infinite) way to go before becoming
a fully-fledged realisation of the original vision [1]. Herein, we identify two aspects in which
the current Web of Data leaves much to be desired, relating to changes in data and the world
they describe, and to dynamics, which considers changes over time:
Inertia: The current Web of Data is prone to being slow to change.
Impermanence: The Web of Data is prone to losing track of the past.
While these issues are not specific to the Web of Data but rather affect the Web more generally,
we will argue in what follows that the causes and effects of these two issues are distinct in the
former case, and thus require dedicated research and solutions.
2. Inertia
The current Web of Data tends to lag behind the real world. While the Web itself is prone to the
same issue, the causes and effects are somewhat distinct in the case of the Web of Data.
In terms of causes, many of the datasets published, for example, as Linked Data, were produced
via an Extract–Transform–Load (ETL) process from a source dataset, producing a dump of
RDF loaded into a store to enable browsing and querying. Many such datasets are irregularly
refreshed from their sources [13], meaning that their RDF version may often lag behind the
original sources. For example, DBpedia [14], a hugely-influential Linked Dataset extracted from
Wikipedia, naturally lags behind in terms of updates to Wikipedia itself (though there are major
efforts to address this that have improved this issue over time [15]). Other datasets may lag
years behind their respective source; for example, LinkedGeoData [16], a widely-used RDF
dataset based on OpenStreetMap, had not been updated since 2015 at the time of writing.
In terms of the effects of inertia, we can identify (at least) the following:
Stale/Missing/Incorrect Results: The results returned by systems that exploit such data may
be out-of-date, less complete, or incorrect. When answering a complex query, applying
reasoning, etc., sometimes one stale triple can dramatically influence results.
Delayed curation: If data are not directly modifiable – for example, if they are the result of
an indirect ETL process – they are not easily corrected. Thus, for example, erroneous
data due to vandalism [17], human error, etc., can persist for a long time.
Biased results: Queries and other forms of analyses may yield results skewed towards the
past; for example, bibliometrics based on older datasets will disproportionately disfavour
junior researchers who have a greater proportion of recent publications, citations, etc.
3. Impermanence
Many of the datasets once published as part of the Web of Data are no longer online. A significant
portion of the datasets currently included in the LOD Cloud do not appear to be available; for
example, though the domain kasabi.com is currently offline, fifteen datasets listed on the LOD
Cloud point to resources on this single website. Aside from datasets, services on the Web of
Data are also impermanent. The SPARQLES service [18] currently estimates that over half of
the SPARQL endpoints once available and reported on DataHub are now offline, and appear
permanently so.2 Other services – such as key search engines [19, 20], data catalogues [21], etc.
– are no longer available. Are these resources still available, in some fashion, on the Web? If
they are not available any more, what have we lost as a result? While the Web maintains, for
example, the Internet Archive, it is not clear what sort of coverage this would have for the Web
of Data, and, in particular, for very large Linked Datasets.
In terms of causes, it is still early days for the Web of Data. In the late 00’s, there was a
significant amount of progress and excitement surrounding Linked Data [9], which led to many
companies, organisations, governments and researchers contributing data and services to this
burgeoning initiative – without necessarily having a long-term archiving or sustainability policy.
When usage of these datasets was less than perhaps hoped, and hosting costs became difficult
to justify, they fell into disuse and were not maintained. Many datasets were published by
research groups, some of which became key resources on the Web of Data, while others were
quickly abandoned, due perhaps to being student projects, or to the researchers moving on to
other projects or changing affiliation, or to the datasets gaining little traction. Academic venues
began accepting dataset papers [22] that – though commendable for those datasets that have
lasting impact – may have incentivised publishing datasets to “get a paper”, but not necessarily
keeping those datasets alive beyond the paper’s publication. In general, even with the best of
intentions initially, keeping datasets, services, etc., available in the long term can be a costly
exercise, and one that may be difficult to justify when impact appears limited.3
In terms of the effects of impermanence, we can mention:
Lost data: Datasets are at risk of being lost to time and indifference. A dataset that has not
received a lot of attention thus far may become of key interest in the future. This effect is
particularly worrisome for datasets that involve considerable human effort to create, or
are otherwise not easily reproducible (i.e., rather than purely ETL-generated datasets).
Link rot: One cannot have a Web of Data without links, which have been a key focus of
initiatives such as Linked Data. However, as datasets increasingly go offline, link rot
becomes increasingly common: links that once worked now return a 404, domain not
found, or similar error. Thus a dataset going offline can affect not only that dataset, but
other datasets that link to it. This can be particularly problematic for datasets that use
the “direct link” mechanism [2], rather than minting local IRIs for each resource linked to
external datasets via owl:sameAs; for example, if a hypothetical dataset ex1 holds the
2
https://sparqles.ai.wu.ac.at/availability
3
The current author is also plenty guilty of not being able to keep datasets, demos, services, etc., that he is involved
with online, including those in published papers. Some of these involved a change of affiliation and losing access to
the host machines; others involved the work of students who leave for other ventures; and so forth.
triple ex1:PiscoSour ex1:country ex2:C123, thus pointing to a dataset ex2 for
details about the country via a dereferenceable IRI ex:C123, but ex2 later goes offline,
important context is lost for ex1: we may not even know which country it speaks about.
4. A Lively and Tenacious Web of Data?
Much like on the current Web, the issues of inertia and impermanence can likely only ever
be mitigated, not ever solved, on the Web of Data. They will continue to be issues for the
foreseeable future, though hopefully less and less so, as we move towards a more lively Web of
Data, wherein changes in the real-world, and in the underlying source datasets, are reflected
in a timely manner; and a more tenacious Web of Data, where data, resources, etc., are not so
easily lost to time. This will likely evolve over time, as experimental datasets go offline, and
key datasets gain further support and resources. We highlight three directions in which the
community can foster and thereafter accelerate this evolution:
Rethinking RDF production: While ETL-produced datasets have been crucial for bootstrap-
ping Linked Data, they have also led to a high degree of inertia, as mentioned in the case
of DBpedia [14]. One way to address this issue is to rather provide wrappers that can
extract resources from the original source online, per DBpedia Live [15]. This may also
address issues of impermanence, where a wrapper, rather than an explicit and potentially
large dataset, may be easier to host. However, wrapper-based approaches also have
potential drawbacks regarding, for example, not being able to directly query the full
up-to-date dataset, etc. A seemingly better alternative is to push RDF production as close
as possible to the original producer of data, where either RDF is used as the primary data
management format, or, as in the case of Wikidata [23], where RDF is used as a secondary
format that is actively synchronised in parallel upon updates. As an example, rather than
needing an ETL-based LinkedGeoData [16], it would be ideal if OpenStreetMap published
live data in RDF directly, along with appropriate interfaces. This might further address
issues of impermanence, where the original source will often be a more stable resource.
Better modelling and prediction of dynamics: It is infeasible to ever locally achieve a con-
sistent, up-to-date, complete view of a decentralised information space as massive as the
Web, or the Web of Data. Designers of Web-based system must thus – be it implicitly or
explicitly – make a trade-off between alignment/timeliness (how well results are aligned
with the current version on the Web), coverage (how many websites are considered)
and efficiency (how long requests take to answer and how many resources are used to
answer them) [24].4 Gains in this trade-off can be made through better understanding,
modelling and prediction of dynamics. For example, imagine a hypothetical alerts-based
system where users can register queries and receive notifications when there are updates
to data on the open Web that match their query (similar to Google Alerts, but for the
open Web of Data). Such a system could offer more up-to-date results more efficiently
4
Most Web-based systems consider efficiency to be bounded or fixed, where the trade-off is then between alignment
and coverage; for example, Google News covers only important news websites, but often captures updates up-to-
the-minute; Google Search covers the broader Web, but may index data not updated in weeks.
over a wider range of sources if it had access to a hypothetical oracle that would indicate
precisely when remote sources would change, and in what manner. In the absence of such
an oracle in practice, this information can be approximated via models and predictions
of dynamics [25], thus improving liveliness. Here dynamics refers – depending on the
application – not only to data, but also to demand (what users are likely to request), etc.
Archiving to avoid data loss: To address impermanence, or conversely to improve tenacious-
ness, further research is needed on techniques for efficiently archiving RDF data, and
querying such archives. Current practices to avoid data loss include publishing dumps of
datasets on high-volume archiving services such as Figshare or Zenodo, but – though
useful – these only support downloading the dump. Ideally we could have an archive
that would enable, for example, versioned queries over the data archived; in order to be
feasible, this would, in turn, require efficient techniques for indexing versioned RDF data.
This is indeed an active area of research [26], but more work is needed.
5. Conclusions
Recent years have seen significant developments on the Web of Data. Based on these experiences,
in this paper, we have highlighted two issues on which more work is needed: inertia and
impermanence. Towards addressing these issues, we argue that it is necessary to rethink how
RDF is produced and published, to conduct further research on models that can predict the
dynamics of not only data but also queries (and potentially users, definitions, etc.), and to
continue to develop efficient techniques for the archiving and querying of historical RDF data.
These lines of research, we argue, will help to foster a more lively and tenacious Web of Data.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by ANID — Millennium Science Initiative Program — Code ICN17_002,
and FONDECYT Grant 1221926. I would also like to thank the organisers of MEPDaW 2022 for
inviting me to give a keynote on this topic.
References
[1] T. Berners-Lee, Semantic Web Road map, W3C Design Issues, 1998. https://www.w3.org/
DesignIssues/Semantic.html.
[2] A. Hogan, The Web of Data, Springer, 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51580-5.
[3] R. Cyganiak, D. Wood, M. Lanthaler, RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recom-
mendation, 2014. https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/.
[4] D. Brickley, R. Guha, B. McBride, RDF Schema 1.1, W3C Recommendation, 2014. https:
//www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/.
[5] P. Hitzler, M. Krötzsch, B. Parsia, P. F. Patel-Schneider, S. Rudolph, OWL 2 Web Ontology
Language Primer (Second Edition), W3C Recommendation, 2012. https://www.w3.org/TR/
owl2-primer/.
[6] S. Harris, A. Seaborne, E. Prud’hommeaux, SPARQL 1.1 Query Language, W3C Recom-
mendation, 2013. https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/.
[7] H. Knublauch, D. Kontokostas, Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), W3C Recommenda-
tion, 2017. https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/.
[8] E. Prud’hommeaux, I. Boneva, J. E. Labra Gayo, G. Kellogg, Shape Expressions Language
2.1, W3C Final Community Group Report, 2019. http://shex.io/shex-semantics/.
[9] T. Heath, C. Bizer, Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space (1st Edition),
volume 1 of Synthesis Lectures on the Semantic Web: Theory and Technology, Morgan &
Claypool, 2011. Available from http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/.
[10] I. Herman, B. Adida, M. Sporny, M. Birbeck, RDFa 1.1 Primer – Third Edition – Rich
Structured Data Markup for Web Documents, W3C Working Group Note, 2015. https:
//www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-primer/.
[11] G. Kellogg, P.-A. Champin, D. Longley, M. Sporny, M. Lanthaler, N. Lindström, JSON-LD
1.1 – A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data, W3C Recommendation, 2020. https:
//www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/.
[12] R. V. Guha, D. Brickley, S. Macbeth, Schema.org: evolution of structured data on the web,
Commun. ACM 59 (2016) 44–51. doi:10.1145/2844544.
[13] T. Käfer, A. Abdelrahman, J. Umbrich, P. O’Byrne, A. Hogan, Observing Linked Data
Dynamics, in: P. Cimiano, Ó. Corcho, V. Presutti, L. Hollink, S. Rudolph (Eds.), The Semantic
Web: Semantics and Big Data, 10th International Conference, ESWC 2013, Montpellier,
France, May 26-30, 2013. Proceedings, volume 7882 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Springer, 2013, pp. 213–227. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38288-8\_15.
[14] J. Lehmann, R. Isele, M. Jakob, A. Jentzsch, D. Kontokostas, P. N. Mendes, S. Hell-
mann, M. Morsey, P. van Kleef, S. Auer, C. Bizer, DBpedia – A large-scale, multi-
lingual knowledge base extracted from Wikipedia, Semantic Web 6 (2015) 167–195.
doi:10.3233/SW-140134.
[15] M. Morsey, J. Lehmann, S. Auer, C. Stadler, S. Hellmann, DBpedia and the live ex-
traction of structured data from Wikipedia, Program 46 (2012) 157–181. doi:10.1108/
00330331211221828.
[16] C. Stadler, J. Lehmann, K. Höffner, S. Auer, LinkedGeoData: A core for a web of spatial
open data, Semantic Web 3 (2012) 333–354. doi:10.3233/SW-2011-0052.
[17] S. Heindorf, M. Potthast, B. Stein, G. Engels, Vandalism Detection in Wikidata, in:
S. Mukhopadhyay, C. Zhai, E. Bertino, F. Crestani, J. Mostafa, J. Tang, L. Si, X. Zhou,
Y. Chang, Y. Li, P. Sondhi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference
on Information and Knowledge Management, CIKM 2016, Indianapolis, IN, USA, October
24-28, 2016, ACM, 2016, pp. 327–336. doi:10.1145/2983323.2983740.
[18] P. Vandenbussche, J. Umbrich, L. Matteis, A. Hogan, C. B. Aranda, SPARQLES: Monitoring
public SPARQL endpoints, Semantic Web 8 (2017) 1049–1065. doi:10.3233/SW-170254.
[19] E. Oren, R. Delbru, M. Catasta, R. Cyganiak, H. Stenzhorn, G. Tummarello, Sindice.com: a
document-oriented lookup index for open linked data, Int. J. Metadata Semant. Ontologies
3 (2008) 37–52. doi:10.1504/IJMSO.2008.021204.
[20] A. Hogan, A. Harth, J. Umbrich, S. Kinsella, A. Polleres, S. Decker, Searching and browsing
Linked Data with SWSE: The Semantic Web Search Engine, J. Web Semant. 9 (2011)
365–401. doi:10.1016/j.websem.2011.06.004.
[21] W. Beek, L. Rietveld, S. Schlobach, F. van Harmelen, LOD Laundromat: Why the Semantic
Web Needs Centralization (Even If We Don’t Like It), IEEE Internet Comput. 20 (2016)
78–81. doi:10.1109/MIC.2016.43.
[22] A. Hogan, P. Hitzler, K. Janowicz, Linked Dataset description papers at the Semantic Web
journal: A critical assessment, Semantic Web 7 (2016) 105–116. doi:10.3233/SW-160216.
[23] S. Malyshev, M. Krötzsch, L. González, J. Gonsior, A. Bielefeldt, Getting the Most Out of
Wikidata: Semantic Technology Usage in Wikipedia’s Knowledge Graph, in: D. Vrandecic,
K. Bontcheva, M. C. Suárez-Figueroa, V. Presutti, I. Celino, M. Sabou, L. Kaffee, E. Simperl
(Eds.), The Semantic Web - ISWC 2018 - 17th International Semantic Web Conference,
Monterey, CA, USA, October 8-12, 2018, Proceedings, Part II, volume 11137 of Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, Springer, 2018, pp. 376–394. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00668-6\
_23.
[24] J. Umbrich, C. Gutierrez, A. Hogan, M. Karnstedt, J. X. Parreira, The ACE theorem for
querying the web of data, in: L. Carr, A. H. F. Laender, B. F. Lóscio, I. King, M. Fontoura,
D. Vrandecic, L. Aroyo, J. P. M. de Oliveira, F. Lima, E. Wilde (Eds.), 22nd International World
Wide Web Conference, WWW ’13, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 13-17, 2013, Companion
Volume, International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee / ACM, 2013, pp.
133–134. doi:10.1145/2487788.2487852.
[25] R. Q. Dividino, T. Gottron, A. Scherp, G. Gröner, From Changes to Dynamics: Dynamics
Analysis of Linked Open Data Sources, in: E. Demidova, S. Dietze, J. Szymanski, J. G. Breslin
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Dataset PROFIling & fEderated
Search for Linked Data co-located with the 11th Extended Semantic Web Conference,
PROFILES@ESWC 2014, Anissaras, Crete, Greece, May 26, 2014, volume 1151 of CEUR
Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2014.
[26] J. D. Fernández, J. Umbrich, A. Polleres, M. Knuth, Evaluating query and storage strategies
for RDF archives, Semantic Web 10 (2019) 247–291. doi:10.3233/SW-180309.