From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:28:10 +0000

Message-ID: <4F259DCA.60007@epimorphics.com>

To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:28:10 +0000

Message-ID: <4F259DCA.60007@epimorphics.com>

To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

CC: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

It would be useful but I wasn't expecting a change to the plan of approving tests and progressing the graph store protocol discussions. End of last call for query is Feb 6th - I don't expect we will be replying until after that point anyway, but, if there's time, we can make a start discussing it. Andy On 29/01/12 19:03, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > I'd suggest we discuss on our call this week. > > Lee > > On 1/28/2012 12:38 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >> A previous conversation of these issues includes: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0005.html >> >> >> >> where the WG points out: >> 1/ That aggregation may yield confusing results to a natural query >> 2/ That an optimizer may be given further information via a sub-query >> and DISTINCT. >> >> The purchase order example seems to me to be a reasonable expectation of >> any spreadsheet user. The same price is arrived at several times (two >> ways: via two :item1's and two uses of the same literal 2). >> >> There are two sets of use cases: one set where duplicates are essential, >> and one set where they are redundant. >> >> Jorge's reply then: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Feb/0012.html >> >> >> >> acknowledged the points in the response. >> >> Andy >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Comments about the semantics of property paths >> Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:52:22 +0000 >> Resent-From: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org >> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:51:45 -0300 >> From: jorge perez <jorge.perez.rojas@gmail.com> >> To: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org >> CC: Marcelo Arenas <marcelo.arenas1@gmail.com>, Sebastián Conca >> <sconca87@gmail.com>, jorge perez <jorge.perez.rojas@gmail.com> >> >> Dear DAWG members, >> >> We have some comments regarding the semantics of property paths. We >> know that this issue has been raised before, but we think that we can >> provide substantial new information to reconsider it. >> >> We have conducted a thorough study of the current semantics of >> property paths including an empirical analysis. All our results are in >> a paper that has been accepted in WWW 2012. You can find a >> copy of the extended version of this paper at >> http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/sub-www-ext.pdf. Given the tight >> schedule of the group, we think that it might be useful to make these >> results public for the group before we have a final published version. >> >> As a summary we can provide two main comments, one from a practical >> perspective and another from a theoretical perspective. >> >> ----------- >> >> - Comment 1: Poor performance of current engines. >> ================================================= >> We tested 4 implementations of property paths: Jena, RDF::Query, >> Sesame, and KGram-Corese (details on the experimental setting can be >> found at http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/). A first >> set of experiments was with synthetic data and other with real data. >> >> In both cases the implementations were not capable to handle even >> small data for the most simple property path queries. >> >> Case A) >> We tested RDF data representing complete graphs. No implementation was >> able to handle a graph with 13 nodes for a query with a single >> property path of the form (:P)* >> >> data1: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/clique13.n3 >> query1: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/Cliq-1.rq >> >> See Figure 1 in the paper for the performance of all implementations >> below 13 nodes. The figure suggests that the evaluation time for these >> implementations growths doubly-exponentially w.r.t. the size of the >> input. >> >> Case B) >> We tested real RDF data crawled from a small set of foaf documents. We >> started from Axel's foaf document and retrieve friends, friends of >> friends, etc. following foaf:knows links, and constructed several test >> cases. In this case, no implementation was able to handle an RDF graph >> of 14KB for a query with a single property path (foaf:knows)* >> >> data2: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/E.n3 >> query2: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/Foaf-1.rq >> >> See Table 1 in the paper for the performance of all implementations. >> >> - Comment 2: High Computational Complexity. >> =========================================== >> We prove in the paper that for the current semantics of property paths >> in SPARQL the complexity of evaluation is double-exponential (Lemma >> 5.4 and Theorem 5.5). Given that property paths require counting >> paths, we measure the complexity by making use of counting complexity >> classes. The technical result is that SPARQL 1.1 evaluation is not >> even inside #P (Theorem 5.5), where #P is the counting complexity >> class associated to NP (a prototypical #P-complete problem is the problem >> of computing the number of truth assignments that satisfies a >> propositional >> formula, which is more complicated than the prototypical NP-complete >> problem >> which is to verify whether there exists at least one truth assignment >> that >> satisfies a propositional formula). Thus, in informal terms, we prove >> that >> SPARQL 1.1 evaluation considering counting is even more complex than >> solving an NP-complete problem. >> >> We also prove that if only the input data is considered to measure the >> complexity of the problem, then the evaluation problem is #P-hard. >> Notice that without property paths, the evaluation problem for SPARQL >> can be solved in polynomial time (if the complexity is measured only in >> terms of the size of the data). >> >> ------------ >> >> Discussion >> ========== >> >> One of the main conclusions that one can draw from our results is that >> the poor performance exhibited in Cases A) and B) above is not a >> problem of the particular implementations but a problem of the >> specification itself, as our theoretical results imply that every >> implementation that follows the current specification of SPARQL 1.1 >> would have the same poor behavior. >> >> Our results also show that the main source of complexity is the >> requirement of counting paths, and in particular the procedure ALP >> which is the one that gives the semantics for counting. Essentially, >> the counting mechanism produces a number of duplicates that in some >> cases are beyond any naturally feasible number. Table 7 in the paper >> shows a worst case analysis. For instance, for the case >> >> data3: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/clique7.n3 >> query3: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/Cliq-2.rq >> >> we formally prove that any implementation that follows the current >> specification should produce an output of 79 Yottabytes (79 trillion >> Terabytes), and thus would not fit in any reasonable storage device. >> Please notice that unfeasible counting can also be obtained with real >> data. For example, for the case >> >> data4: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/D.n3 >> query2: http://www.dcc.uchile.cl/~jperez/www_repeatability/Foaf-1.rq >> >> ARQ (which was the only implementation that was able to handle this >> case in less than one hour) produced an output of 587MB. Notice that >> data3 is of only 13.2KB. Table 6 in the paper shows the running time >> and the output size. Please notice that this experiment is with real >> data and it is highly probable that property paths will be used in >> practice with this type of queries. >> >> It is worth mentioning that our group is not the only one that have >> formally studied property-path semantics according to the current >> specification, and that have shown negative results about the complexity >> of evaluating it. We are aware that Katja Losemann and Wim Martens >> obtained similar results independently from us. Wim Martens gave a >> talk about this called "The complexity of evaluating path expressions >> in SPARQL" in a Dagstuhl seminar. In that work, the authors also >> studied property-path expressions of the form :P{m,n}, and show that >> the complexity of evaluating them is very high. >> >> We think that we have provided substantial new information to >> reconsider the issue of property path semantics. We have several other >> comments, but we think that the two comments above are the most >> important to consider, and we are open to continue the discussion with >> the group and, if necessary, cooperate with the group to make a proposal >> for property path evaluation that can have an efficient evaluation >> method. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Marcelo Arenas >> Sebastián Conca >> Jorge Pérez >> >> >>Received on Sunday, 29 January 2012 19:28:39 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:47 GMT
*