- 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