- From: Matt Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 13:51:11 -0500
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- CC: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Hi Lee, Thanks for the comments. Please find my answers to your questions below. -Matt Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > > 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.) Yes. I guess this would be somewhat redundant. > > 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. Yes. Both SQL Server and DB2 support recursive common table expressions, which provide the same basic functionality. > > Lee > >> >> Thanks, >> Matt >> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 11 January 2010 18:52:03 UTC