Talk:SPARQL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acronym[edit]

The acronym definition was recently anonymously changed from “SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language” to “Simple Protocol and RDF Query Language.” The W3C Candidate Recommendation (6 April 2006) still uses the former. Is there a reference for it being changed? If it has changed, this article should be edited to not call it a recursive acronym. —Fleminra 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

- The acronym change seems spurious, I've changed it back. See proposal, working group resolution Danja 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


Who's using SPARQL?[edit]

If SPARQL is such a good thing why is everybody not using it? Another standard the query language SQL is used everywhere in the database world. Perhaps the answer is too general and does not belong in this article. Newschapmj1 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Everyone" is, for meanings of everyone that extend to those querying triple stores rather than the Codd-model RDBMS that SQL addresses. Rather we should ask why triple stores and tools for working with semi-structured data (data that has an emergent structure, but not a prior published schema to say what this will be) are still so rare, compared to shoe-horning this same sort of data into rigid RDBMS schema that make it difficult to work with. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

The article at the link "Berners-Lee looks for Web's big leap", is no longer available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.122.33 (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


Ref 9 is deadlink -- is there are an alternative source? ^ "D2R Server". Retrieved 2012- 02-4.

For example, the following query returns names and emails of every person in the world.[edit]

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Please, give me a source verifying the existence of a piece of software that is capable of returning the the names and email addresses of every person in the world. Even ignoring the fact that the majority of persons in the world still don't have email addresses, it is clear that there is nothing approaching a global catalogue of the names of the entire human population, and I take any claim to the contrary with _extreme_ suspicion. Roy Badami (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the claim to return every result in the world is hyperbolic and should probably be removed. It would return all the names and addresses in the dataset that the query engine had access to. I guess it could be claimed that the query is asking for all the names and email address in the world but the result will only contain answers in the dataset that it has access to.Zachary Whitley

Loose Claims of Unambiguity[edit]

The following seems like a very loose claim to make:

"Notice that this global unambiguity roots in the fact that every identifier in SPARQL, URI, is unambiguous, unlike "email" or "e-mail" normally used in SQL."

Ultimately URIs are just symbols. If we all agreed on "email" as a symbol, it would have just as much global unambiguity as FOAF or whatever URI based symbols might... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.117.243 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ontologies, mapping[edit]

I removed this paragraph

 ..assuming the ontologies in use to describe a person are mapped to 
 FOAF via rules from whatever ontology the original relations were in. 
 This illustrates the Semantic Web's vision of treating the Web as a 
 single enormous database. Notice that this global unambiguity roots 
 in the fact that every identifier in SPARQL, URI, is unambiguous, 
 unlike "email" or "e-mail" normally used in SQL.

for the following reasons: No ontologies are necessary for this query to run against a set of triples that have foaf:Person, foaf:name, and foaf:mbox triples. Ontologies are useful for inferencing, but no inferencing is demonstrated here, and certainly no mapping is necessary here. The use of URIs as unambiguous global identifiers is important in RDF, but it is not demonstrated by this query. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobdc (talkcontribs) 16:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Short Language Description?[edit]

There are three reasons I'm asking for it:

  1. The links below the article are marked as legacy.
  2. Even though I could then navigate to the more up-to-date version, the original document is vast (as is the case with the rest of W3C papers bloated with formulaic blabbering). I couldn't work my way through the examples (they aren't intuitive enough to speak for themselves), so at least the bits of grammar required to explain the examples would be useful, I think.
  3. For example, the Wiki page dedicated to SQL has the language basics in it (the list of operators / keywords etc.) 109.64.130.34 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)