- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:33:11 -0500
- To: matthew.perry@oracle.com
- CC: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Matt Perry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> During the last TC, I mentioned the possibility of a Property Paths
> profile that identifies a subset of property path queries that can be
> expressed with SQL. Such a profile would make it easy for triple stores
> implemented on top of relational databases to identify the set of
> property path queries that they "natively" support. The purpose of this
> email is to start a discussion about the possibility of property path
> profiles.
>
> The grammars below show two possible fragments that we have identified.
> The first grammar is for SQL + CONNECT BY (Oracle) and the second is for
> PLAIN SQL.
>
> CONNECT BY:
>
> ALT -> URI | URI|ALT
> SEQ -> URI | URI/SEQ
> Elem -> URI | SEQ | ALT | ^URI
> COMP -> URI | Elem* | Elem+ | Elem{n,m} | Elem?
> TOP -> URI | COMP | ALT | SEQ | ^URI
>
> PLAIN SQL:
>
> ALT -> URI | URI|ALT
> SEQ -> URI | URI/SEQ
> Elem -> URI | SEQ | ALT | ^URI
> COMP -> URI | Elem{n,m} | Elem?
> TOP -> URI | COMP | ALT | SEQ | ^URI
Are the Plain SQL set simply the set that can be expanded as a (possibly
complicated) SPARQL 1.0 query string? (This is sort of but not exactly
what's termed a "simple path" in the current doc.)
Do other DBMSes included equivalent/similar functionality to CONNECT BY?
I'm hesitant to go down a multi-level conformance path in the first
place, but I'd be even more hesitant to do so if it were just in the
context of a single DBMS.
Lee
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 18:33:48 UTC