2
edits
Mozilla2:Unified Storage: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
notes on using SPARQL
(notes on using SPARQL) |
|||
| Line 344: | Line 344: | ||
I think FireBird would be much preferable to SQLite, especially for Windows users as SQLite is flakey on Windows network drives. | I think FireBird would be much preferable to SQLite, especially for Windows users as SQLite is flakey on Windows network drives. | ||
=== Comments from DanBri === | |||
The SPARQL query language (see notes in [http://esw.w3.org/topic/SparqlImplementations W3C ESW wiki) is a good candidate for such an abstract layer. Mozilla always had a notion of breaking things out into datasources, ... but the granularity (per-triple calls) was too fine-grained. SPARQL addresses this in a couple of ways. Firstly, you can wrap datasources by having them expose their data "as RDF" without doing it in terms of a triple-centric API. So for example, look at http://jena.sourceforge.net/SquirrelRDF/ which allows both LDAP and vanilla SQL to be mapped into RDF. Secondly, the query language itself has a notion of data provenance, as expressed through the GRAPH keyword, which has some potential for deealing with the 'free floating triples' issue. A query can include constructs that match against RDF graph structures (like a cleaned-up version of the old Mozilla RDF templates mechanism), ... but it can also include constraints that target triples from particular "named graphs". This seems a good match to Mozilla's needs and multi-datasource design, to me. | |||
The query language also comes with a simple XML representation of a result set, suitable for XSLT/Xpath/Xquery etc processing. This could replace a lot of what Templates used to do. | |||
I don't follow all the Mozilla forums but give me a shout if I can be useful somehow! | |||
---- | ---- | ||