@@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ If a node is deemed invalid, a reason is given, e.g. "Cardinality violation (min
\FloatBarrier
\section{Evaluation}\label{section:evaluation}
In this section we evaluate our tool. We explain the methodology in Section~\ref{section:methodology}. In Section~\ref{section:runtime} we measured the runtime of our tool with different input parameters. Furthermore, we tested correctness of the generated \emph{ShEx}-constraints and also cross validated them in Section~\ref{section:correctness}.
In this section we show the evaluation of our tool. We explain the methodology in Section~\ref{section:methodology}. In Section~\ref{section:runtime} we discuss the results of measuring the runtime of our tool with different input parameters. Furthermore, we tested correctness of the generated \emph{ShEx}-constraints and also checked the validation, as shown in Section~\ref{section:correctness}.
\subsection{Methodology}
...
...
@@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ Figure~\ref{fig:exec_times_no_limit} shows the runtime without limiting the cons
\subsection{Correctness}
\label{section:correctness}
\subsubsection{ShEx Generation}
We thought \emph{Shexer} (see Section~\ref{section:related_work}) was a good fit for cross validating our \emph{ShEx}-generation. However, due to our limited knowledge of operating this tool, we did not manage to generate proper constraints for our RiverBodyOfWater-dataset. Our attempt at using this tool is shown in Figure~\ref{code:shexer}, which generated the trivial, non-restrictive constraints shown in Figure~\ref{fig:shexer_output}.
We thought \emph{Shexer} (see Section~\ref{section:related_work}) was a good fit for comparing our \emph{ShEx}-generation. However, due to our limited knowledge of operating this tool, we did not manage to generate proper constraints for our RiverBodyOfWater-dataset. Our attempt at using this tool is shown in Figure~\ref{code:shexer}, which generated the trivial, non-restrictive constraints shown in Figure~\ref{fig:shexer_output}.
Therefore, we checked the generated constraints manually for small subgraphs (see Figures~\ref{fig:shex_canal_50}, \ref{fig:shex_rbow_50} and \ref{fig:shex_service_50}) and identified two issues with our tool.
...
...
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ Secondly, optional properties are not always inferred and therefore missing from
\subsubsection{ShEx Validation}
The generated \emph{ShEx}-constraints for small subgraphs (Canal with \emph{LIMIT} 50, Service with \emph{LIMIT} 50) were cross validated using the online-tool \emph{RDFShape}\cite{RDFShape}. The validation result was the same as in our tool, being that all nodes are conformant.
The generated \emph{ShEx}-constraints for small subgraphs (Canal with \emph{LIMIT} 50, Service with \emph{LIMIT} 50) were used to validate their respective subgraphs using the online-tool \emph{RDFShape}\cite{RDFShape}. The validation result was the same as in our tool, being that all nodes are conformant.
