Counting Beyond a Yottabyte, or how SPARQL 1.1 Property Paths will Prevent Adoption of the Standard
Author
dc.contributor.author
Arenas, Marcelo
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Conca, Sebastián
es_CL
Author
dc.contributor.author
Pérez Rojas, Jorge
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2013-12-20T14:24:35Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2013-12-20T14:24:35Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2012-04
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
WWW 2012, April 16–20, 2012
en_US
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/125815
General note
dc.description
Artículo de publicación ISI
en_US
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
SPARQL –the standard query language for querying RDF– provides
only limited navigational functionalities, although these features
are of fundamental importance for graph data formats such as
RDF. This has led the W3C to include the property path feature in
the upcoming version of the standard, SPARQL 1.1.
We tested several implementations of SPARQL 1.1 handling property
path queries, and we observed that their evaluation methods
for this class of queries have a poor performance even in some
very simple scenarios. To formally explain this fact, we conduct
a theoretical study of the computational complexity of property
paths evaluation. Our results imply that the poor performance of
the tested implementations is not a problem of these particular systems,
but of the specification itself. In fact, we show that any implementation
that adheres to the SPARQL 1.1 specification (as of
November 2011) is doomed to show the same behavior, the key
issue being the need for counting solutions imposed by the current
specification. We provide several intractability results, that together
with our empirical results, provide strong evidence against the current
semantics of SPARQL 1.1 property paths. Finally, we put our
results in perspective, and propose a natural alternative semantics
with tractable evaluation, that we think may lead to a wide adoption
of the language by practitioners, developers and theoreticians.