W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > January 2003

list change for discussion of "RDF query for SQL data"

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:51:05 -0500
To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030120175104.GB13531@w3.org>

I originally sent this to www-rdf-interest. I reallized after
posting the message that it would be more appropriate on
www-rdf-rules. www-rdf-interest folks, please post followups
to www-rdf-rules.


algae [1] and cwm [2] now both have the ability to query a relational
database with an application-specific schema. An example OrderTracking
database is queryable via MySQL at swada.w3.org with the username
rdftest and no password. The n3 (see example [3])

 :o Orders:customer :c .
 :o Orders:product :p .
 :o Orders:orderDate :d .

 :p Products:name :productName .

 :c Customers:familyName :first .
 :c Customers:givenName :last .
 :c Customers:billingAddress :billAddr .

 :billAddr Addresses:street :billStreet .
 :billAddr Addresses:city :billCity .
 :billAddr Addresses:state :billState .

is translated into an SQL query
 SELECT Products_0.id AS p_id,
          Products_0.name AS productName_name,
        Addresses_0.id AS billAddr_id,
          Addresses_0.city AS billCity_city,
          Addresses_0.state AS billState_state,
          Addresses_0.street AS billStreet_street,
        Customers_0.id AS c_id,
          Customers_0.familyName AS first_familyName,
          Customers_0.givenName AS last_givenName,
        Orders_0.id AS o_id,
          Orders_0.orderDate AS d_orderDate
 FROM Products AS Products_0, Addresses AS Addresses_0, Customers AS Customers_0, Orders AS Orders_0
 WHERE Customers_0.billingAddress=Addresses_0.id
   AND Orders_0.customer=Customers_0.id
   AND Orders_0.product=Products_0.id

and executed. The results are mapped back into RDF statements,
available for report or furthur inferencing. The algae equivilent (see
example [4]) is
       (OT::Orders.customer	?o	?c)
       (OT::Orders.product	?o	?p)
       (OT::Orders.orderDate	?o	?d)
       (OT::Products.name	?p	?productName)
       (OT::Customers.givenName	?c	?first)
       (OT::Customers.familyName	?c	?last)
       (OT::Customers.billingAddress	?c	?billAddr)
       (OT::Addresses.street	?billAddr ?billStreet)
       (OT::Addresses.city	?billAddr ?billCity)
       (OT::Addresses.state	?billAddr ?billState)

One implications of this is that an awful lot of rdb data could be
easily made available to RDF tools. Another is that mapping such data
to RDF can be a way to join disparate rdbs. And a third is that RDF
data can be made to scale on the same order as rdbs, which is
generally acknowledged as very well.

Anyways, it would be fun to get some feedback if folks want to try out
either the cwm or algae implementations. If you experiment with cwm,
you will need to install mysql drivers for python (debian package
python2.2-mysqldb) and for algae you will need mysql drivers for perl
(debian package libdbd-mysql-perl). The perl version has the ability
to do ORs [5] NOTs, [5] and outer joins [6]. I haven't worked out the
notation for that in n3 but it should be feasible to port to cwm as
well. As an example, the algae query
       (OT::Orders.customer		?o	?c)
       (OT::Orders.product		?o	?p)
       (OT::Orders.orderDate	?o	?d)
       (OT::Products.name		?p	?productName)
       (OT::Customers.givenName	?c	?first)
       (OT::Customers.familyName	?c	?last)
       (OT::Customers.billingAddress ?c	?billAddr)
       (OT::Addresses.contact	?billAddr ?biller)
       (OT::Customers.givenName	?biller	?bFirst)
       (OT::Customers.familyName	?biller	?bLast)
       ~(OT::Orders.shippingAddress	?o	?shipAddr)
       ~(OT::Addresses.contact	?shipAddr ?signer)
       (OT::Customers.givenName	?signer	?sFirst)
       (OT::Customers.familyName	?signer	?sLast)

results in the SQL query
 SELECT Orders_0.id AS o_id,
 Orders_0.orderDate AS d_orderDate,
        Products_0.id AS p_id,
 Products_0.name AS productName_name,
        Customers_0.id AS c_id,
 Customers_0.givenName AS first_givenName,
 Customers_0.familyName AS last_familyName,
        Addresses_0.id AS billAddr_id,
 Addresses_0.street AS billStreet_street,
 Addresses_0.city AS billCity_city,
 Addresses_0.state AS billState_state,
        Addresses_1.id AS shipAddr_id,
 Addresses_1.street AS shipStreet_street,
 Addresses_1.city AS shipCity_city,
 Addresses_1.state AS shipState_state
 FROM Orders AS Orders_0
      INNER JOIN Customers AS Customers_0 ON Orders_0.customer=Customers_0.id
      INNER JOIN Products AS Products_0 ON Orders_0.product=Products_0.id
      INNER JOIN Addresses AS Addresses_0 ON Customers_0.billingAddress=Addresses_0.id
      LEFT OUTER JOIN Addresses AS Addresses_1 ON (Orders_0.shippingAddress=Addresses_1.id)

and the data
+------+----------+------------+------+----------+--------+--------+
| first|      last| productName|bFirst|     bLast|  sFirst|   sLast|
|------|----------|------------|------|----------|--------|--------|
|"Chip"|"Thompson"| "nose ring"|"Biff"|"Thompson"|    NULL|    NULL|
|"Chip"|"Thompson"|"other ring"|"Biff"|"Thompson"|"Eustis"|"Walker"|
|"Biff"|"Thompson"|      "pool"|"Biff"|"Thompson"|    NULL|    NULL|
|"Chip"|"Thompson"|"skateboard"|"Biff"|"Thompson"|    NULL|    NULL|
+------+----------+------------+------+----------+--------+--------+

Another interesting feature is that both can trap under-constrained
queries and throw an exception before executing such potentially
expensive (and likely useless) queries. They can also do an
overconstraint check and warn the certain tables are linked to others
in more than one way, even if it is via some number of intermediate
tables.

Clearly the largest contribution this technology has to offer,
however, is the cool formatting of the SQL queries.

Next on the plate are some compelling example queries joining data
from the OrderTracking database with some other database. I considered
a product review database, but such services are more likely to be
available over HTTP and SQL. (cwm and algae can join against data
obtained from HTTP, but that was not so much the point of this
exercise.) I would be interested in suggestion, particularly ones that
would be interesting to the web services crowd.

Let me know what you think of this. Thanks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/cwm.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/1999/02/26-modules/
[3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2000/10/swap/test/dbork/OrderTracking1.n3
[4] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/perl/modules/W3C/Rdf/test/OrderTracking1-alg.sh 
[5] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/perl/modules/W3C/Rdf/test/SqlDBtest7-alg.sh
[6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/perl/modules/W3C/Rdf/test/OrderTracking5-alg.sh 
-- 
-eric

office: +1.617.258.5741 NE43-344, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02144 USA
cell:   +1.857.222.5741

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 12:51:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:10 GMT