Something that happens to me now and then: I’ll hear that an organization with a lot of interesting data (science, music, whatever) makes the data available on a SPARQL endpoint. I send my browser to the URL listed as the SPARQL endpoint and I see a web form. I enter a simple query on the web form to retrieve a few random triples, click the form’s button, and the results of my query appear. Then I enter fancier queries to explore the endpoint’s data.
I have seen several tools for converting spreadsheets to RDF over the years. They typically try to cover so many different cases that learning how to use them has taken more effort than just writing a short perl script that uses the
split() command, so that’s what I usually ended up doing. (Several years ago I did come up with another way that was more of a cute trick with Turtle syntax.)
A few years ago I wrote a blog post titled SPARQL in a Jupyter (a.k.a. IPython) notebook: With just a bit of Python to frame it all. It described how Jupyter notebooks, which have become increasingly popular in the data science world, are an excellent way to share executable code and the results and documentation of that code. Not only do these notebooks make it easy to package all of this in a very presentable way; they also make it easy for your reader to tweak the code in a local copy of your…
I’ve often thought that named graphs could provide an infrastructure for managing inferenced triples, and a recent Twitter exchange with Adrian Gschwend inspired me to follow through with a little demo.
Last month in Populating a Schema.org dataset from Wikidata I talked about pulling data out of Wikidata and using it to create Schema.org triples, and I hinted about the possibility of updating Wikidata data directly. The SPARQL fun of this is to then perform queries against Wikidata and to see your data edits reflected within a few minutes. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly edits showed up in query results, so I thought I would demo it with a little video.
Have you ever written a SPARQL query that returned a suspiciously large amount of results, especially with too many combinations of values? You may have accidentally requested a cross product. I have spent too much time debugging queries where this turned out to be the problem, so I wanted to talk about avoiding it.