W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > July 2014

Re: comparing to OWL and SPIN

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:16:54 -0400
Message-ID: <53CD5916.3000007@w3.org>
To: Kendall Clark <kendall@clarkparsia.com>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "Dam, Jesse van" <jesse.vandam@wur.nl>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
On 07/21/2014 01:54 PM, Kendall Clark wrote:
> n Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org 
> <mailto:sandro@w3.org>> wrote:
>     On 07/21/2014 08:09 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>             I could be that the Regular Expression derivatives
>             algorithm, although much less expressive then OWL, is
>             outperforming the OWL reasoners.  Only some research and
>             testing will give an useful answer, but certainly
>             something nice to consider and test.
>         Yes, this could be tested.  I expect that StarDog ICV will
>         perform very well, as it works by translation into SPARQL
>         queries.
>     It looks to me like ShEx could validate a graph serialization in
>     linear time (with the size of the serialization), with no need for
>     storing the graph.  That's appealing to me when we're talking 
>     about validating messages that are being sent between systems.
> No need to store the graph unless its size exceed available memory, 
> right? That does happen from time to time.

When I said "store", I meant in RAM.  :)   I was thinking it would be 
nice to have validation as part of a streaming serializer and streaming 
parser.  It's nice to have those things not buffer the whole 
input/output before moving it on.

>     SPARQL based solutions require storing and searching the graph,
>     which is exponential (and likely slow unless properly indexed),
>     but that's probably fine if you're just validating data that you
>     need to keep in a SPARQL system anyway.
> Actually Stardog ICV does both; either transactionally for data under 
> storage or in-memory for message passing and middleware contexts.
> Also, the complexity of SPARQL query answering is well understood and 
> it's not EXP.

Interesting, this is what I get for stretching myself too thin across 
too many technologies.   I would have thought executing a query with a 
graph pattern like { <s> <p1> ?v1.  ?v1 <p2> ?v2. ...    ?v(n-1) <pn> 
?vn } would take time proportional to k^n.   With sufficient indexing, k 
might be very close to 1, but without indexing, I'd think k would be the 
mean cardinality of p1...pn.   And of course indexing takes time.

       -- Sandro

> Cheers,
> Kendall
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 18:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC