RDF2HTML, XSD2OWL, CS2OWL, XML2RDF

RDF2HTML
This package implements a RDF/XML-ABREV to HTML translator.It is based on the XSL style sheet.

XSD2OWL
This package implements a XML Schema to OWL ontology translator.It is based on the XSL style sheet.

CS2OWL
This package implements a MPEG-7 Classification Scheme to OWL ontology translator.It is based on the XSL style sheet.

XML2RDF
Transform XML metadata to RDF taking into account previous XML Schema to OWL mappings. Currently, these are the available XML Schema to OWL mappings loaded into the database. More mappings can be easily added just by adding the mapping RDF statements and loading the corresponding OWL ontology.

JXML2OWL

JXML2OWL Project is divided in two sub projects:
JXML2OWL API, an open source library for mapping XML schemas to OWL Ontologies on the JAVA platform.
JXML2OWL Mapper, an easy to use standalone application with a graphical user interface developed in JAVA SWING, using the JXML2OWL API.

http://jxml2owl.projects.semwebcentral.org/index.html

XML2OWL

It converts a given XML instance files to an OWL ontology. You can also extract an OWL model only out of an XML Schema file. If there is no XML Schema available, one will be generated from the XML instance document. OWL instances can be combined with their model.

http://xml2owl.sourceforge.net/index.php?input=about

Benchmarking Database Representations of RDF/S Stores

In this paper we benchmark three popular database representations
of RDF/S schemata and data: (a) a schema-aware (i.e., one table
per RDF/S class or property) with explicit (ISA) or implicit (NOISA)
storage of subsumption relationships, (b) a schema-oblivious (i.e., a single
table with triples of the form hsubject-predicate-objecti), using (ID)
or not (URI) identi ers to represent resources and (c) a hybrid of the
schema-aware and schema-oblivious representations (i.e., one table per
RDF/S meta-class by distinguishing also the range type of properties).
Furthermore, we benchmark two common approaches for evaluating taxonomic
queries either on-the-y (ISA, NOISA, Hybrid), or by precomputing
the transitive closure of subsumption relationships (MatView, URI,
ID). The main conclusion drawn from our experiments is that the evaluation
of taxonomic queries is most ecient over RDF/S stores utilizing the
Hybrid and MatView representations. Of the rest, schema-aware representations
(ISA, NOISA) exhibit overall better performance than URI, which
is superior to that of ID, which exhibits the overall worst performance.

http://139.91.183.30:9090/RDF/publications/RBenchFinal.pdf