W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Introducing myself - SOA organised with RDF

From: Frank Carvalho <dko4342@vip.cybercity.dk>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:04:12 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <13925369.post@talk.nabble.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org



>If I got your point, you want ways to hop from a node to another node in
the
>proximity, say A is your node, you want node B such that:
>A someproperty B

Yes, that's my standard test case, though I also need those nodes where C
someproperty A. That is, the immediate vicinity of A - both forward and
backward. 

>In this case it may be faster to use the Jena API instead of SPARQL: once
>you get A in some way, you call A.listProperties() to have all statements
>with A as subject (including those referring to B). More specialized
>requests, such as list the properties with a specific predicate, are easy
as
>well.

We did actually do this using the API, and it is vastly faster, so for the
graphical exploration of the graph we would certainly use that approach in
any case. I also suspect that the API is really the only way to make forward
and backward chaining efficiently. 

My concern is really more if the SPARQL language is nice, but inefficient
for practical purposes. You see, when the graph is a way to describe the
artifacts for a SOA, and we want to enable the business to make intelligent
analysis of the impact of changes, we need to be able to tailor make
requests for each purpose. So we need a language like SPARQL to do that in a
flexible way. So it is a serious problem if the language - or the
implementation of the query engine - is inherently slow.

/Frank

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Introducing-myself---SOA-organised-with-RDF-tf4263503.html#a13925369
Sent from the w3.org - semantic-web mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2007 15:04:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:29 UTC