The LRA Workbench: an IDE for efficient REST API composition through linked metadata
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The number of Web APIs for accessing information and services is continuously increasing, and yet, no tools exist to automate the time-consuming and error-prone process of invoking those APIs and composing their responses. The recent emergence of widely-adopted, standardized, Web-API description formats and the development of Linked Data technologies for data integration have motivated our work on the LRA (Linked REST APIs) methodology [1, 2]. LRA relies on RDF service specifications to automate the development process around the usage of Web APIs. This automation represents a great opportunity to systematize and improve the quality of service-oriented application development. However, LRA’s reliance on SPARQL as the user-interaction model may hinder its adoption, because it requires developers to learn the intricacies of the unconventional graph data model and its associated datasets. In this paper we have developed the LRA Workbench ( $$LRA_{Wbench}$$ LRAWbench ), which takes advantage of the emergent schema of Web-API specifications, in order to simplify the formulation of LRA-compliant SPARQL queries. Our empirical evaluation of the $$LRA_{Wbench}$$ LRAWbench usability demonstrates that our tool significantly improves the performance of developers formulating SPARQL queries for LRA. A subsequent study on the effectiveness of the $$LRA_{Wbench}$$ LRAWbench demonstrated that developers using LRA tend to produce code with considerable better structural complexity, in less time, than developers manually composing APIs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.018 |
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".