Re: Potential Requirement: Predicate support with boolean operators

On May 5, 2004, at 3:28 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 05:29:29PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> Perhaps some of the implementors would like to relate
>> their experience?
> I have [1], but it didn't seem to motivate people. In the Annotea
> service, I use a few Algae queries like:

I must have missed that - we have some simple/lightweight OR 
(disjunction) support in our RDQL back-end. In fact, our indexing 
allows those quite efficiently - even though full disjunction is more 
tricky, but still quite possible to run behind a Web  interface. In the 
AMS preso (see slide 8) I put a sample query which uses an insane 
(abusive) extension to the core language, to use commas inside 
triple-pattern parts to match different dc:source(s) - actually used in 
our news-blender demo

> ------------ example queries --------------------
> ask (?reply rdf:type t:Reply.
>      ?reply t:root <foo>.
>      (?reply dc0:title ?title ||
>       ?reply dc1:title ?title)
>     )
> collect (?reply ?title)

which would map to our RDQL-ish as

	?reply ?title
	(?reply <rdf:type> <t:Reply>)
	(?reply <t:root> <foo>)
	(?reply <dc0:title , dc1:title> ?title)

where the 3rd triple pattern contains 2 predicates separated by 
space+comma+space (' , '); which is an implementation trick/compromise 
due that URIs can contain commas as far as I know - any other syntactic 
sugar can be invented if necessary. The same can be used on any other 
node pattern - as well as on subjects, predicates, objects (also 
literals) and graph-name(context as 4th component)

E.g. Given an RSS1.0 store/database, select all rss:item(s) from and dc:source(s)

         (?item <rdf:type> <rss:item>)
         (?items ?ii ?item)
         (?items <rdf:type> <rdf:Seq>)
         (?s <rss:items> ?items)
         (?s <rdf:type> <rss:channel>)
         (?s <dc:source> < ,>)

or even more tricky on object literal values or stems

E.g. select rss:item(s) with dc:title value either "title 1" in english 
or "titolo 1" or "titolo 2" in italian

         (?item <rdf:type> <rss:item>)
         (?item <dc:title> <"title 1"@en , "titolo 1"@it , "titolo 

As shown above the syntax for OR-ing literals is more tricky - and it 
requires to use single/double quotes and the space-comma-space syntax 
above for URIs/QNames - but it works quite well at the end because each 
triples pattern sub-query maps to a simple series of boolean operations 
on certain bit maps - at least for us :o)

>   and
> ask (<bar>    rdf:type    a:Annotation .
>      <bar>    a:annotates ?annotates.
>      <bar>    a:context   ?context.
>      ( <bar>  dc0:creator ?creator ||
>        <bar>  dc1:creator ?creator )
>      ?creator a:E-mail    ?email.
>      ?creator a:name      ?name.
>      <bar>    a:ceated    ?created.
>      ( <bar>  dc0:date    ?date ||
>        <bar>  dc1:date    ?date )
>      <bar>    a:body      ?body .
>      ?body    http:Body   ?bodyData.
>      ?body    http:ContentType ?contentType
>     )
> collect (?annotation ?body ?creator ?date ?contentType)

similarly here in RDQL-ish

	?annotation ?body ?creator ?date ?contentType
	(<bar> <rdf:type> <a:Annotation>)
	(<bar> <a:annotates> ?annotates)
	(<bar> <a:context> ?context)
	(<bar> <dc0:creator , dc1:creator>, ?creator)
	(?creator <a:E-mail> ?email)
	(?creator <a:name> ?name)
	(<bar> <a:created> ?created)
	(<bar> <dc0:date , dc1:date> ?date)
	//...and so on...

> Note, the latter query needs to be expressed as four separate 
> queriesif disjunction is not used.

yes indeed! even simple OR-ing (disjunction) is very useful in 
practical terms - we are also thinking to use such feature to expand 
simple rdf:type queries to check different (sub/super) types of things 
instead of use recursion or stuff like that...

> ---------- end example queries -------------------
> We've had some discussion around disjunction limited to property
> values (for example, ?creator is "Bob" or "Joe" or "Sue"). During the
> face to face, someone said that disjunctions with different properties
> was difficult, but my implementation experience hasn't born that out
> in either an in-memory query engine or a translation to SQL*.

right - we found out that disjunction is possible to run quite 
efficiently using some iterative algorithm as a sequence of AND and OR 
operations, but it has quite a lot of implications in the 
optimization/mapping to SQL. Sometime ago, I tried to propose some 
syntactic sugar for more generic OR/disjunction [1] - which never got 
implemented as far as I know - but it would be nice/useful to see it 
usable into the core DAWG language.

to conclude - my guts feeling is that users of our query language will 
need (in a way or the other) some primitive type of OR/disjunction to 
simplify their life while programming with RDF :)




Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 06:32:48 UTC