Supporting Decentralized SPARQL Queries in an Ad-Hoc Semantic Web Data Sharing System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sharing the Semantic Web data encoded in Resource Description Framework (RDF) triples from proprietary datasets scattered around the Internet, calls for efficient support from distributed computing technologies. The highly dynamic ad-hoc settings that would be pervasive for Semantic Web data sharing among personal users in the future, however, pose even more demanding challenges for the enabling technologies. We extend previous work on a hybrid peer-to-peer (P2P) architecture for an ad-hoc Semantic Web data sharing system which better models the data sharing scenario by allowing data to be maintained by its own providers and exhibits satisfactory scalability owing to the adoption of a two-level distributed index and hashing techniques. Additionally, we propose efficient, scalable decentralized processing of SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL) queries in such a context and explore optimization techniques that build upon distributed query processing for database systems and relational algebra optimization. The effectiveness and efficiency of the SPARQL query processing mechanism we proposed for a decentralized settings were verified through a series of experiments. We anticipate that our work will become an indispensable, complementary approach to making the Semantic Web a reality by delivering efficient data sharing and reusing in an ad-hoc environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".