Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Current Trends in Theory and Practice of Informatics

SOFSEM 2015: SOFSEM 2015: Theory and Practice of Computer Science pp 78–101Cite as

Back to the Future – Should SQL Surrender to SPARQL?

  • Conference paper

  • 1301 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 8939))

Abstract

In this paper, we will take a closer look at the essential differences between two of the most prominent database query languages today, SPARQL and SQL, and at their underlying data models, RDF resp. the relational model (RM). There is an enormous “hype” around SPARQL/RDF at the moment claiming all kinds of advantages of these “newcomers” over the long-established SQL/RM setting. We discover that many of these claims are not justified, at least not as far as data representation and querying is concerned. Our conclusion will be that SQL/RM are well able to serve the same purpose as SPARQL/RDF if treated fairly, and if presenting itself properly. We omit all aspects of navigation over distributed or federated data resources, though, as SQL isn’t (yet) made for this task.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL Query Language for RDF, W3C Recommendation (January 15, 2008), http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query/

  2. Klyne, G., Carroll, J. (eds.): Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax, W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/

  3. Date, C., Darwen, H.: A Guide to the SQL Standard, 4th edn. Addison Wesley (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Prud’hommeaux, E., Bertails, A.: A Mapping of SPARQL to Conventional SQL, http://www.w3.org/2008/07/MappingRules/StemMapping

  5. Chebotko, A., Lu, S., Fotouhi, F.: Semantics Preserving SPARQL-to-SQL Translation, . DKE 68(10), 973–1000 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mohan, C.: History Repeats Itself: Sensible and NonsenSQL Aspects of the NoSQL Hoopla. In: Proc. EDBT, pp. 11–16 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Atzeni, P., Jensen, C.S., et al.: The Relational Model is Dead, SQL is Dead, and I Don’t Feel so Good Myself. ACM SIGMOD Record 42(3), 64–68 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar, N.V., Kumar, A., Abhishek, K.: A Comprehensive Comparative Study of SPARQL and SQL. IJCSIT 2(4), 1706–(2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_tot_the_Future

  10. Chen, P.: The Entity-Relationship Model – Toward a Unified View of Data. TODS 1(1), 9–36 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. McGuinness, D., van Harmelen, F. (eds.): OWL Web Ontology Language Overview, W3C Recommendation (February 10, 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/

  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology(informationscience)

    Google Scholar 

  13. The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hull, R., King, R.: Semantic Database Modelling: Survey, Applications, and Research Issues. ACM Computing Surveys 19(3), 201–260 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, B.: Ontology. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information, pp. 155–166. Blackwell, Oxford (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Harris, S., Seaborne, A. (eds.): SPARQL 1.1 Query Language, W3C Recommendation (March 21, 2013) http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

  17. Codd, E.: Extending the database relational model to capture more meaning. TODS 4(4), 397–434 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Codd, E.: A Relational Model for Large Shared Data Banks. CACM 13(6), 377–387 (1970)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Lacroix, M., Pirotte, A.: Domain-Oriented Relational Languages. In: Proc. 3rd VLDB, pp. 370–378 (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zloof, M.: Query by Example. In: Proc. IFIPS, pp. 431–438 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ceri, S., Gottlob, G., Tanca, L.: What You Always Wanted to Know About Datalog (And Never Dared to Ask). TKDE 1(1), 146–166 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Robinson, J.A.: A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution Principle. JACM 12(1), 23–41 (1965)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Bry, F., Furche, T., et al.: RDFLog: It’s Like Datalog for RDF. In: Proc. WLP, pp. 17–26 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Science III, University of Bonn, Germany

    Rainer Manthey

Authors
  1. Rainer Manthey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00133, Rome, Italy

    Giuseppe F. Italiano

  2. University of Limerick, Ireland

    Tiziana Margaria-Steffen

  3. Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jaroslav Pokorný

  4. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain, Belgium

    Jean-Jacques Quisquater

  5. ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Roger Wattenhofer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Manthey, R. (2015). Back to the Future – Should SQL Surrender to SPARQL?. In: Italiano, G.F., Margaria-Steffen, T., Pokorný, J., Quisquater, JJ., Wattenhofer, R. (eds) SOFSEM 2015: Theory and Practice of Computer Science. SOFSEM 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8939. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46078-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46078-8_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46077-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46078-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation