Slashdot Mirror


SPARQL Graduates to W3C Recommendation

KjetilK writes "The W3C just gave SPARQL the stamp of approval. SPARQL is a query language for the Semantic Web, and differs from other query languages in that is usable across different data sources. There are already 14 implementations of the spec available. Most of them are free software. There are also billions of relations out there that are query-able, thanks to the Linking Open Data project. The structured data of Wikipedia is now query-able at DBpedia. Also, have a look at Ivan Herman's presentations on this topic."

18 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. Query by minginqunt · · Score: 4, Funny

    A query language for the semantic web...

    A what for the what now?

    I'd always assumed the semantic web was some meaningless and faded buzzword designed to keep the W3C away from useful stuff. Is it back again with a vengeance?

    THE SEMANTIC WEB II: THIS TIME IT'S FOLKSONOMY

    Eek.

    1. Re:Query by verbalcontract · · Score: 2, Funny

      I spent a minute trying to find out what this was all about, and came upon this from Tim Berners-Lee:

      The Semantic Web isn't just about putting data on the web. It is about making links, so that a person or machine can explore the web of data. With linked data, when you have some of it, you can find other, related, data.

      Like the web of hypertext, the web of data is constructed with documents on the web. However, unlike the web of hypertext, where links are relationships anchors in hypertext documents written in HTML, for data they links between arbitrary things described by RDF,. The URIs identify any kind of object or concept. But for HTML or RDF, the same expectations apply to make the web grow:

      1. Use URIs as names for things

      2. Use HTTP URIs so that people can look up those names.

      3. When someone looks up a URI, provide useful information.

      4. Include links to other URIs. so that they can discover more things.

      Simple.

      So, uh, yeah. I'm just as stumped as you are.

    2. Re:Query by minginqunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, uh, yeah. I'm just as stumped as you are.

      Maybe I'm just your regular Homer, but reading that, I only make it as far as the second paragraph before my mind has already wandered off to a magical land of (Beer/Chocolate/Boobies)*.

      *delete as appropriate

    3. Re:Query by fromeroj · · Score: 2, Funny

      mmmhhh Chocolate Boobies...

  2. SPARQL Motion by grassy_knoll · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Sometimes, I doubt your commitment to SPARQL Motion! "

    With apologies to Donnie Darko ...

  3. Semantic Web Quite Important by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Though the Semantic web is not important for the casual user--I think Google is pretty good now--but for a machine trying to converse with a human being, the semantic web is a great advance. I myself have an open source project on Googlecode that had a place holder for just this item. Thank god it's coming along.

  4. The Semantic Web has been a reality for years now by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every time there is a story about the Semantic Web here, people trot out the old "It's utopian vaporware" nonsense. The technologies that stand behind the term "Semantic Web" have existed for nearly a decade now and have produced much fruit. Just see Visualizing the Semantic Web by Geroimenko & Chen (Springer-Verlag, 2nd ed. 2005) which has plenty of real-world examples of using these technologies to get real work done.

    Sure, the average joe isn't producing semantically meaningful markup when he uses his whizbang Web 2.0 sites, but then again what the average joe produces isn't worth all that much anyway. Even if the Semantic Web doesn't expand to include all Internet activity, it has and continues to do much good.

  5. Re:The Semantic Web has been a reality for years n by minginqunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, the average joe isn't producing semantically meaningful markup when he uses his whizbang Web 2.0 sites, but then again what the average joe produces isn't worth all that much anyway. Even if the Semantic Web doesn't expand to include all Internet activity, it has and continues to do much good.

    Cutting a swathe through your charmingly misplaced snobbery for a second, the ideal thing would be for you to provide a useful example or two of this human thing called SEMANTIWEB, and explain to silly old me how it has already changed my life but I'm just too gosh darned ordinary to have noticed.

  6. It is really simple by KjetilK · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, it is actually really simple. See, first thing is that you link two documents. That's good old HTML. Then, you realise that you would want to link anything. Like persons. So, you give those persons a URI. You can't retrieve a person over the Internet, that's why it is a URI, not a URL, but you can get a description of the person. And then you realise that you want to say something about the nature of the relationship. So you put in a third URI that says something about the relationship. For example that the person knows that other person, or is his son, or something.

    so

    <http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows> <http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/card#i>

    simply says that I know timbl. I hope you're less stumped than you used to be.

    If you grok this, you've grokked 90% of RDF.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    1. Re:It is really simple by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me (perhaps over-) simplify this for you.
      Stupid Question Language (SQL) does great for two dimensional sets of data.
      Special Peoples' Advanced Retarded Question language (SPARQL) is meant for return results from tree-shaped lumps of textual data, and lets you use regular expressions to figure out where you are in the tree and match nodes and attributes and stuff.
      I think smart money is going to continue to arrange data in sets, and in five years, your SQL knowledge will still be serving you in quite good stead.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re:It is really simple by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      <http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/foaf#me>

      Good lord, you actually have content there. Sweet Zombie Jesus, it's like if MySpace was irradiated with XML-Rays and mutated into a complete XML-based social network specification, which requires everyone to write their own specifications and hand-edit XML files.

      That's just ... scary.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:It is really simple by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hehe, well, yeah, FOAF's been around for ages, it predates pretty much the whole social networking craze. But the XML thing is kinda arbitrary, it is just one of several ways to write RDF. I don't really write RDF as XML by hand anymore, except for that single file. I might use RDF/XML if it is generated, if I hand-write, I use Turtle.

      Anyway, FOAF + SIOC + Policy Aware Web comprises pretty good solutions to the data portability and privacy considerations people have been screaming about lately.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  7. Re:The Semantic Web has been a reality for years n by KjetilK · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, no, it hasn't changed your life just yet, but you could check out a few links in the story, there is a lot of potential there. I'm not going to run off on conspiracy theories, but it is pretty clear that many big players likes to keep things under locks, that's a hurdle that makes this take slightly longer.

    In my submission, I gave an example query, which you can run at DBPedia with their standard prefixes:

    SELECT ?name ?birth ?death ?person WHERE
    { ?person skos:subject ;
                        dbpedia2:birth ?birth ;
                        foaf:name ?name .
    OPTIONAL { ?person dbpedia2:death ?death }
    FILTER (?birth "1945-01-01"^^xsd:date) . }
    ORDER BY ?name"

    What this says is "give me the name, birth data and death date of a person that has the following properties:
    It is a computer scientist, who has a birth day and a name and optionally a death date, then filter based on the date and order it by name.

    There are now billions of such stuff you can query, and if you're open minded, it could indeed change your life.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  8. SPARQL by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Am I the only person who looked at that name 'SPARQL' and went 'Is that Sun's new name for MySQL?'

  9. Why emphasize the semantic web? by HappyEngineer · · Score: 5, Informative

    I suppose it's cool to emphasize the semantic web use of SPARQL. But, at its core SPARQL is a query language for RDF data stores. It takes some learning, but using SPARQL against an RDF data store feels much cleaner than using SQL against a relational database. It's slower though. Much slower. That's why it works best for small data sets.

    My company stores the schema for our objects in RDF and use SPARQL to query against that schema. The actual data is saved to a relational database (our experiments with an all-RDF system concluded that it's just too slow for large data sets).

    The RDF data stores can exist in arbitrary places (they don't need to be local), but I wonder how slow that would be to query.

    Nevertheless, I encourage people to at least learn about this stuff. It's good for the same reason that learning about Ruby and Python is a good thing even if you only ever program in Java or C++. RDF and SPARQL make you start thinking about inferences and ways of storing data which allow you to derive more information from your information. When I first learned about RDF I had the same type of aha moments that I had when I first learned a dynamic language (FWIW, it was TADS3) after years of using static languages.

  10. What If You Build It And Nobody Comes? by littlewink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Guess we'll finally find out now. The Semantic Web remains Tim Berners-Lee's vanity project: well-intended but poorly thought out and unfortunately unwanted.

  11. Wonderful! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But, you know someone out there is thinking to themselves: "How can I use this new technology to spam people."

    Just like everything else, somehow someone is going to try to shove their advertising down it.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    1. Re:Wonderful! by trouser · · Score: 2, Funny

      Really? I was wondering how I could use it to get girls.

      --
      Now wash your hands.