OpenLink Community Blog

As a part of defining benchmark audit for testing ACID properties on RDF stores, we will here examine different RDF scenarios where lack of concurrency control causes inconsistent results. In so doing, we consider common implementation techniques and implications as concern locking (pessimistic) and multi-version (optimistic) concurrency control schemes.

In the following, we will talk in terms of triples, but the discussion can be trivially generalized to quads. We will use numbers for IRIs and literals. In most implementations, the internal representation for these is indeed a number (or at least some data type that has a well defined collation order). For ease of presentation, we consider a single index with key parts SPO. Any other index-like setting with any possible key order will have similar issues.

Insert (Create) and Delete

INSERT and DELETE as defined in SPARQL are queries which generate a result set which is then used for instantiating triple patterns. We note that a DELETE may delete a triple which the DELETE has not read; thus the delete set is not a subset of the read set. The SQL equivalent is the

DELETE FROM table WHERE key IN 
   ( SELECT key1 FROM other_table )

expression, supposing it were implemented as a scan of other_table and an index lookup followed by DELETE on table.

The meaning of INSERT is that the triples in question exist after the operation, and the meaning of DELETE is that said triples do not exist. In a transactional context, this means that the after-image of the transaction is guaranteed either to have or not-have said triples.

Suppose that the triples { 1 0 0 }, { 1 5 6 }, and { 1 5 7 } exist in the beginning. If we DELETE { 1 ?x ?y } and concurrently INSERT { 1 2 4 . 1 2 3 . 1 3 5 }, then whichever was considered to be first by the concurrency control of the DBMS would complete first, and the other after that. Thus the end state would either have no triples with subject 1 or would have the three just inserted.

Suppose the INSERT inserts the first triple, { 1 2 4 }. The DELETE at the same time reads all triples with subject 1. The exclusive read waits for the uncommitted INSERT. The INSERT then inserts the second triple, { 1 2 3 }. Depending on the isolation of the read, this either succeeds, since no { 1 2 3 } was read, or causes a deadlock. The first corresponds to REPEATABLE READ isolation; the second to SERIALIZABLE.

We would not get the desired end-state of either all the inserted triples or no triples with subject 1 if the read or the DELETE were not serializable.

Furthermore if a DELETE template produced a triple that did not exist in the pre-image, the DELETE semantics still imply that this also does not exist in the after-image, which implies serializability.

Read and Update

Let us consider the prototypical transaction example of transferring funds from one account to another. Two balances are updated, and a history record is inserted.

The initial state is

a  balance  10
b  balance  10

We transfer 1 from a to b, and at the same time transfer 2 from b to a. The end state must have a at 11 and b at 9.

A relational database needs REPEATABLE READ isolation for this.

With RDF, txn1 reads that a has a balance of 10. At the same time, txn1 reads the balance of a. txn2 waits because the read of txn1 is exclusive. txn1 proceeds and read the balance of b. It then updates the balance of a and b.

All goes without the deadlock which is always cited in this scenario, because the locks are acquired in the same order. The act of updating the balance of a, since RDF does not really have an update-in-place, consists of deleting { a balance 10 } and inserting { a balance 9 }. This gets done and txn1 commits. At this point, txn2 proceeds after its wait on the row that stated { a balance 10 }. This row is now gone, and txn2 sees that a has no balance, which is quite possible in RDF's schema-less model.

We see that REPEATABLE READ is not adequate with RDF, even though it is with relational. The reason why there is no UPDATE-in-place is that the PRIMARY KEY of the triple includes all the parts, including the object. Even in a RDBMS, an UPDATE of a primary key part amounts to a DELETE-plus-INSERT. One could here argue that an implementation might still UPDATE-in-place if the key order were not changed. This would resolve the special case of the accounts but not a more general case.

Thus we see that the read of the balance must be SERIALIZABLE. This means that the read locks the space before the first balance, so that no insertion may take place. In this way the read of txn2 waits on the lock that is conceptually before the first possible match of { a balance ?x }.

locking order and OLTP

To implement TPC-C, I would update the table with the highest cardinality first, and then all tables in descending order of cardinality. In this way, the locks with the highest likelihood for contention are held for the least time. If locking multiple rows of a table, these should be locked in a deterministic order, e.g., lowest key-value first. In this way, the workload would not deadlock. In actual fact, with clusters and parallel execution, the lock acquisition will not be guaranteed to be serial, so deadlocks do not entirely go away, but still may get fewer. Besides, any outside transaction might still lock in the wrong order and cause deadlocks, which is why the OLTP application must in any case be built to deal with the possibility of deadlock.

This is the conventional relational view of the matter. In more recent times, in-memory schemes with deterministic lock acquisition (Abadi VLDB 2010) or single-threaded atomic execution of transactions (Uni Munich BIRTE workshop at VLDB2010, VoltDB) have been proposed. There the transaction is described as a stored procedure, possibly with extra annotations. These techniques might apply to RDF also. RDF is however an unlikely model for transaction-intensive applications, so we will not for now examine these further.

RDBMS usually implement row-level locking. This means that once a column of a row has an uncommitted state, any other transaction is prevented from changing the row. This has no ready RDF equivalent. RDF is usually implemented as a row-per-triple system and applying row-level locking to this does not give the semantic one expects of a relational row.

I would argue that it is not essential to enforce transactional guarantees in units of rows. The guarantees must apply between data that is read and written by a transaction. It does not need to apply to columns that the transaction does not reference. To take the TPC-C example, the new order transaction updates the stock level and the delivery transaction updates the delivery count on the stock table. In practice, a delivery and a new order falling on the same row of stock will lock each other out, but nothing in the semantics of the workload mandates this.

It does not seem a priori necessary to recreate the row as a unit of concurrency control in RDF. One could say that a multi-attribute whole (such as an address) ought to be atomic for concurrency control, but then applications updating addresses will most likely read and update all the fields together even if only the street name changes.

Pessimistic Vs. Optimistic Concurrency Control

We have so far spoken only in terms of row-level locking, which is to my knowledge the most widely used model in RDBMS, and one we implement ourselves. Some databases (e.g., MonetDB and VectorWise) implement optimistic concurrency control. The general idea is that each transaction has a read and write set and when a transaction commits, any other transactions whose read or write set intersects with the write set of the committing transaction are marked un-committable. Once a transaction thus becomes un-committable, it may presumably continue reading indefinitely but may no longer commit its updates. Optimistic concurrency is generally coupled with multi-version semantics where the pre-image of a transaction is a clean committed state of the database as of a specific point in time, i.e., snapshot isolation.

To implement SERIALIZABLE isolation, i.e., the guarantee that if a transaction twice performs a COUNT the result will be the same, one locks also the row that precedes the set of selected rows and marks each lock so as to prevent an insert to the right of the lock in key order. The same thing may be done in an optimistic setting.

Positional Handling of Updates in Column Stores [Heman, Zukowski, CWI science library] discusses management of multiple consecutive snapshots in some detail. The paper does not go into the details of different levels of isolation but nothing there suggests that serializability could not be supported. There is some complexity in marking the space between ordered rows as non-insertable across multiple versions but this should be feasible enough.

The issue of optimistic Vs. pessimistic concurrency does not seem to be affected by the differences between RDF and relational models. We note that an OLTP workload can be made to run with very few transaction aborts (deadlocks) by properly ordering operations when using a locking scheme. The same does not work with optimistic concurrency since updates happen immediately and transaction aborts occur whenever the writes of one intersect the reads or writes of another, regardless of the order in which these were made.

Developers seldom understand transactions; therefore DBMS should, within the limits of the possible, optimize locking order for locking schemes. A simple example is locking in key order when doing an operation on a set of values. A more complex variant would consist of analyzing data dependencies in stored procedures and reordering updates so as to get the highest cardinality tables first. We note that this latter trick also benefits optimistic schemes.

In RDF, the same principles apply but distinguishing cardinality of an updated set will have to rely on statistics of predicate cardinality. Such are anyhow needed for query optimization.

Eventual Consistency

Web scale systems that need to maintain consistent state across multiple data centers sometimes use "eventual consistency" schemes. Two-phase-commit becomes very inefficient as latency increases, thus strict transactional semantics have prohibitive cost if the system is more distributed than a cluster with a fast interconnect.

Eventual consistency schemes (Amazon Dynamo, Yahoo! PNUTS) maintain history information on the record which is the unit of concurrency control. The record is typically a non-first normal form chunk of related data that it makes sense to store together from the application's viewpoint. Application logic can then be applied to reconciling differing copies of the same logical record.

Such a scheme seems a priori ill-suited for RDF, where the natural unit of concurrency control would seem to be the quad. We first note that only recently changed (i.e., DELETEd + INSERTed quads, as there is no UPDATE-in-place) need history information. This history information can be stored away from the quad itself, thus not disrupting compression. When detecting that one site has INSERTed a quad that another has DELETEd in the same general time period, application logic can still be applied for reading related quads in order to arrive at a decision on how to reconcile two databases that have diverged. The same can apply to conflicting values of properties that for the application should be single-valued. Comparing time-stamped transaction logs on quads is not fundamentally different from comparing record histories in Dynamo or PNUTS.

As we overcome the data size penalties that have until recently been associated with RDF, RDF becomes even more interesting as a data model for large online systems such as social network platforms where frequent application changes lead to volatility of schema. Key value stores are currently found in such applications, but they generally do not provide the query flexibility at which RDF excels.

Conclusions

We have gone over basic aspects of the endlessly complex and variable topic of transactions, and drawn parallels as well as outlined two basic differences between relational and RDF systems: What used to be REPEATABLE READ becomes SERIALIZABLE; and row-level locking becomes locking at the level of a single attribute value. For the rest, we see that the optimistic and pessimistic modes of concurrency control, as well as guidelines for writing transaction procedures, remain much the same.

Based on this overview, it should be possible to design an ACID test for describing the ACID behavior of benchmarked systems. We do not intend to make transaction support a qualification requirement for an RDF benchmark, but information on transaction support will still be valuable in comparing different systems.

As a part of defining benchmark audit for testing ACID properties on RDF stores, we will here examine different RDF scenarios where lack of concurrency control causes inconsistent results. In so doing, we consider common implementation techniques and implications as concern locking (pessimistic) and multi-version (optimistic) concurrency control schemes.

In the following, we will talk in terms of triples, but the discussion can be trivially generalized to quads. We will use numbers for IRIs and literals. In most implementations, the internal representation for these is indeed a number (or at least some data type that has a well defined collation order). For ease of presentation, we consider a single index with key parts SPO. Any other index-like setting with any possible key order will have similar issues.

Insert (Create) and Delete

INSERT and DELETE as defined in SPARQL are queries which generate a result set which is then used for instantiating triple patterns. We note that a DELETE may delete a triple which the DELETE has not read; thus the delete set is not a subset of the read set. The SQL equivalent is the

DELETE FROM table WHERE key IN 
   ( SELECT key1 FROM other_table )

expression, supposing it were implemented as a scan of other_table and an index lookup followed by DELETE on table.

The meaning of INSERT is that the triples in question exist after the operation, and the meaning of DELETE is that said triples do not exist. In a transactional context, this means that the after-image of the transaction is guaranteed either to have or not-have said triples.

Suppose that the triples { 1 0 0 }, { 1 5 6 }, and { 1 5 7 } exist in the beginning. If we DELETE { 1 ?x ?y } and concurrently INSERT { 1 2 4 . 1 2 3 . 1 3 5 }, then whichever was considered to be first by the concurrency control of the DBMS would complete first, and the other after that. Thus the end state would either have no triples with subject 1 or would have the three just inserted.

Suppose the INSERT inserts the first triple, { 1 2 4 }. The DELETE at the same time reads all triples with subject 1. The exclusive read waits for the uncommitted INSERT. The INSERT then inserts the second triple, { 1 2 3 }. Depending on the isolation of the read, this either succeeds, since no { 1 2 3 } was read, or causes a deadlock. The first corresponds to REPEATABLE READ isolation; the second to SERIALIZABLE.

We would not get the desired end-state of either all the inserted triples or no triples with subject 1 if the read or the DELETE were not serializable.

Furthermore if a DELETE template produced a triple that did not exist in the pre-image, the DELETE semantics still imply that this also does not exist in the after-image, which implies serializability.

Read and Update

Let us consider the prototypical transaction example of transferring funds from one account to another. Two balances are updated, and a history record is inserted.

The initial state is

a  balance  10
b  balance  10

We transfer 1 from a to b, and at the same time transfer 2 from b to a. The end state must have a at 11 and b at 9.

A relational database needs REPEATABLE READ isolation for this.

With RDF, txn1 reads that a has a balance of 10. At the same time, txn1 reads the balance of a. txn2 waits because the read of txn1 is exclusive. txn1 proceeds and read the balance of b. It then updates the balance of a and b.

All goes without the deadlock which is always cited in this scenario, because the locks are acquired in the same order. The act of updating the balance of a, since RDF does not really have an update-in-place, consists of deleting { a balance 10 } and inserting { a balance 9 }. This gets done and txn1 commits. At this point, txn2 proceeds after its wait on the row that stated { a balance 10 }. This row is now gone, and txn2 sees that a has no balance, which is quite possible in RDF's schema-less model.

We see that REPEATABLE READ is not adequate with RDF, even though it is with relational. The reason why there is no UPDATE-in-place is that the PRIMARY KEY of the triple includes all the parts, including the object. Even in a RDBMS, an UPDATE of a primary key part amounts to a DELETE-plus-INSERT. One could here argue that an implementation might still UPDATE-in-place if the key order were not changed. This would resolve the special case of the accounts but not a more general case.

Thus we see that the read of the balance must be SERIALIZABLE. This means that the read locks the space before the first balance, so that no insertion may take place. In this way the read of txn2 waits on the lock that is conceptually before the first possible match of { a balance ?x }.

locking order and OLTP

To implement TPC-C, I would update the table with the highest cardinality first, and then all tables in descending order of cardinality. In this way, the locks with the highest likelihood for contention are held for the least time. If locking multiple rows of a table, these should be locked in a deterministic order, e.g., lowest key-value first. In this way, the workload would not deadlock. In actual fact, with clusters and parallel execution, the lock acquisition will not be guaranteed to be serial, so deadlocks do not entirely go away, but still may get fewer. Besides, any outside transaction might still lock in the wrong order and cause deadlocks, which is why the OLTP application must in any case be built to deal with the possibility of deadlock.

This is the conventional relational view of the matter. In more recent times, in-memory schemes with deterministic lock acquisition (Abadi VLDB 2010) or single-threaded atomic execution of transactions (Uni Munich BIRTE workshop at VLDB2010, VoltDB) have been proposed. There the transaction is described as a stored procedure, possibly with extra annotations. These techniques might apply to RDF also. RDF is however an unlikely model for transaction-intensive applications, so we will not for now examine these further.

RDBMS usually implement row-level locking. This means that once a column of a row has an uncommitted state, any other transaction is prevented from changing the row. This has no ready RDF equivalent. RDF is usually implemented as a row-per-triple system and applying row-level locking to this does not give the semantic one expects of a relational row.

I would argue that it is not essential to enforce transactional guarantees in units of rows. The guarantees must apply between data that is read and written by a transaction. It does not need to apply to columns that the transaction does not reference. To take the TPC-C example, the new order transaction updates the stock level and the delivery transaction updates the delivery count on the stock table. In practice, a delivery and a new order falling on the same row of stock will lock each other out, but nothing in the semantics of the workload mandates this.

It does not seem a priori necessary to recreate the row as a unit of concurrency control in RDF. One could say that a multi-attribute whole (such as an address) ought to be atomic for concurrency control, but then applications updating addresses will most likely read and update all the fields together even if only the street name changes.

Pessimistic Vs. Optimistic Concurrency Control

We have so far spoken only in terms of row-level locking, which is to my knowledge the most widely used model in RDBMS, and one we implement ourselves. Some databases (e.g., MonetDB and VectorWise) implement optimistic concurrency control. The general idea is that each transaction has a read and write set and when a transaction commits, any other transactions whose read or write set intersects with the write set of the committing transaction are marked un-committable. Once a transaction thus becomes un-committable, it may presumably continue reading indefinitely but may no longer commit its updates. Optimistic concurrency is generally coupled with multi-version semantics where the pre-image of a transaction is a clean committed state of the database as of a specific point in time, i.e., snapshot isolation.

To implement SERIALIZABLE isolation, i.e., the guarantee that if a transaction twice performs a COUNT the result will be the same, one locks also the row that precedes the set of selected rows and marks each lock so as to prevent an insert to the right of the lock in key order. The same thing may be done in an optimistic setting.

Positional Handling of Updates in Column Stores [Heman, Zukowski, CWI science library] discusses management of multiple consecutive snapshots in some detail. The paper does not go into the details of different levels of isolation but nothing there suggests that serializability could not be supported. There is some complexity in marking the space between ordered rows as non-insertable across multiple versions but this should be feasible enough.

The issue of optimistic Vs. pessimistic concurrency does not seem to be affected by the differences between RDF and relational models. We note that an OLTP workload can be made to run with very few transaction aborts (deadlocks) by properly ordering operations when using a locking scheme. The same does not work with optimistic concurrency since updates happen immediately and transaction aborts occur whenever the writes of one intersect the reads or writes of another, regardless of the order in which these were made.

Developers seldom understand transactions; therefore DBMS should, within the limits of the possible, optimize locking order for locking schemes. A simple example is locking in key order when doing an operation on a set of values. A more complex variant would consist of analyzing data dependencies in stored procedures and reordering updates so as to get the highest cardinality tables first. We note that this latter trick also benefits optimistic schemes.

In RDF, the same principles apply but distinguishing cardinality of an updated set will have to rely on statistics of predicate cardinality. Such are anyhow needed for query optimization.

Eventual Consistency

Web scale systems that need to maintain consistent state across multiple data centers sometimes use "eventual consistency" schemes. Two-phase-commit becomes very inefficient as latency increases, thus strict transactional semantics have prohibitive cost if the system is more distributed than a cluster with a fast interconnect.

Eventual consistency schemes (Amazon Dynamo, Yahoo! PNUTS) maintain history information on the record which is the unit of concurrency control. The record is typically a non-first normal form chunk of related data that it makes sense to store together from the application's viewpoint. Application logic can then be applied to reconciling differing copies of the same logical record.

Such a scheme seems a priori ill-suited for RDF, where the natural unit of concurrency control would seem to be the quad. We first note that only recently changed (i.e., DELETEd + INSERTed quads, as there is no UPDATE-in-place) need history information. This history information can be stored away from the quad itself, thus not disrupting compression. When detecting that one site has INSERTed a quad that another has DELETEd in the same general time period, application logic can still be applied for reading related quads in order to arrive at a decision on how to reconcile two databases that have diverged. The same can apply to conflicting values of properties that for the application should be single-valued. Comparing time-stamped transaction logs on quads is not fundamentally different from comparing record histories in Dynamo or PNUTS.

As we overcome the data size penalties that have until recently been associated with RDF, RDF becomes even more interesting as a data model for large online systems such as social network platforms where frequent application changes lead to volatility of schema. Key value stores are currently found in such applications, but they generally do not provide the query flexibility at which RDF excels.

Conclusions

We have gone over basic aspects of the endlessly complex and variable topic of transactions, and drawn parallels as well as outlined two basic differences between relational and RDF systems: What used to be REPEATABLE READ becomes SERIALIZABLE; and row-level locking becomes locking at the level of a single attribute value. For the rest, we see that the optimistic and pessimistic modes of concurrency control, as well as guidelines for writing transaction procedures, remain much the same.

Based on this overview, it should be possible to design an ACID test for describing the ACID behavior of benchmarked systems. We do not intend to make transaction support a qualification requirement for an RDF benchmark, but information on transaction support will still be valuable in comparing different systems.

Let us talk about what ought to be benchmarked in the context of RDF.

A point that often gets brought up by RDF-ers when talking about benchmarks is that there already exist systems which perform very well at TPC-H and similar workloads, and therefore there is no need for RDF to go there. It is, as it were, somebody else's problem; besides, it is a solved one.

On the other hand, being able to express what is generally expected of a query language might not be a core competence or a competitive edge, but it certainly is a checklist item.

BSBM seems to be adopted as a de facto RDF benchmark, as there indeed is almost nothing else. But we should not lose sight of the fact that this is in fact a relational schema and workload that has just been straightforwardly transformed to RDF. BSBM was made, after all, in part for measuring RDB to RDF mapping. Thus BSBM is no more RDF-ish than a trivially RDF-ized TPC-H would be. TPC-H is however a bit more difficult if also a better thought out benchmark than the BSBM BI Mix proposal. But I do not expect an RDF audience to have any enthusiasm for this as this is indeed a very tough race by now, and besides one in which RDB and SQL will keep some advantage. However, using this as a validation test is meaningful, as there exists a validation dataset and queries that we already have RDF-ized. We could publish these and call this "RDF-H".

In the following I will outline what would constitute an RDF-friendly, scientifically interesting benchmark. The points are in part based on discussions with Peter Boncz of CWI.

The Social Network Intelligence Benchmark (SNIB) takes the social web Facebook-style schema Ivan Mikhailov and I made last year under the name of Botnet BM. In LOD2, CWI is presently working on this.

The data includes DBpedia as a base component used for providing conversation topics, information about geographical locales of simulated users, etc. DBpedia is not very large, around 200M-300M triples, but it is diverse enough.

The data will have correlations, e.g., people who talk about sports tend to know other people who talk about the same sport, and they are more likely to know people from their geographical area than from elsewhere.

The bulk of the data consists of a rich history of interactions including messages to individuals and groups, linking to people, dropping links, joining and leaving groups, and so forth. The messages are tagged using real-world concepts from DBpedia, and there is correlation between tagging and textual content since both are generated from Dbpedia articles. Since there is such correlation, NLP techniques like entity and relationship extraction can be used with the data even though this is not the primary thrust of SNIB.

There is variation in frequency of online interaction, and this interaction consist of sessions. For example, one could analyze user behavior per time of day for online ad placement.

The data probably should include propagating memes, fashions, and trends that travel on the social network. With this, one could query about their origin and speed of propagation.

There should probably be cases of duplicate identities in the data, i.e., one real person using many online accounts to push an agenda. Resolving duplicate identities makes for nice queries.

Ragged data with half-filled profiles and misspelled identifiers like person and place names are a natural part of the social web use case. The data generator should take this into account.

• Distribution of popularity and activity should follow a power-law-like pattern; actual measures of popularity can be sampled from existing social networks even though large quantities of data cannot easily be extracted.

• The dataset should be predictably scalable. For the workload considered, the relative importance of the queries or other measured tasks should not change dramatically with the scale.

For example some queries are logarithmic to data size (e.g., find connections to a person), some are linear (e.g., find average online time of sports fans on Sundays), and some are quadratic or worse (e.g., find two extremists of the same ideology that are otherwise unrelated). Making a single metric from such parts may not be meaningful. Therefore, SNIB might be structured into different workloads.

The first would be an online mix with typically short lookups and updates, around O ( log ( n ) ).

The Business Intelligence Mix would be composed of queries around OO ( n log ( n ) ). Even so, with real data, choice of parameters will provide dramatic changes in query run-time. Therefore a run should be specified to have a predictable distribution of "hard" and "easy" parameter choices. In the BSBM BI mix modification, I did this by defining some to be drill downs from a more general to a more specific level of a hierarchy. This could be done here too in some cases; other cases would have to be defined with buckets of values.

Both the real world and LOD2 are largely concerned with data integration. The SNIB workload can have aspects of this, for example, in resolving duplicate identities. These operations are more complex than typical database queries, as the attributes used for joining might not even match in the initial data.

One characteristic of these is the production of sometimes large intermediate results that need to be materialized. Doing these operations in practice requires procedural control. Further, running algorithms like network analytics (e.g., Page rank, centrality, etc.) involves aggregation of intermediate results that is not very well expressible in a query language. Some basic graph operations like shortest path are expressible but then are not in unextended SPARQL 1.1; as these would for example involve returning paths, which are explicitly excluded from the spec.

These are however the areas where we need to go for a benchmark that is more than a repackaging of a relational BI workload.

We find that such a workload will have procedural sections either in application code or stored procedures. Map-reduce is sometimes used for scaling these. As one would expect, many cluster databases have their own version of these control structures. Therefore some of the SNIB workload could even be implemented as map-reduce jobs alongside parallel database implementations. We might here touch base with the LarKC map-reduce work to see if it could be applied to SNIB workloads.

We see a three-level structure emerging. There is an Online mix which is a bit like the BSBM Explore mix, and an Analytics mix which is on the same order of complexity as TPC-H. These may have a more-or-less fixed query formulation and test driver. Beyond these, yet working on the same data, we have a set of Predefined Tasks which the test sponsor may implement in a manner of their choice.

We would finally get to the "raging conflict" between the "declarativists" and the "map reductionists." Last year's VLDB had a lot of map-reduce papers. I know of comparisons between Vertica and map reduce for doing a fairly simple SQL query on a lot of data, but here we would be talking about much more complex jobs on more interesting (i.e., less uniform) data.

We might even interest some of the cluster RDBMS players (Teradata, Vertica, Greenplum, Oracle Exadata, ParAccel, and/or Aster Data, to name a few) in running this workload using their map-reduce analogs.

We see that as we get to topics beyond relational BI, we do not find ourselves in an RDF-only world but very much at a crossroads of many technologies, e.g., map-reduce and its database analogs, various custom built databases, graph libraries, data integration and cleaning tools, and so forth.

There is not, nor ought there to be, a sheltered, RDF-only enclave. RDF will have to justify itself in a world of alternatives.

This must be reflected in our benchmark development, so relational BI is not irrelevant; in fact, it is what everybody does. RDF cannot be a total failure at this, even if this were not RDF's claim to fame. The claim to fame comes after we pass this stage, which is what we intend to explore in SNIB.

Benchmarks, Redux Series

• Benchmarks, Redux (part 1): On RDF Benchmarks
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 2): A Benchmarking Story
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 3): Virtuoso 7 vs 6 on BSBM Load and Explore
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 4): Benchmark Tuning Questionnaire
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 5): BSBM and I/O; HDDs and SSDs
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 6): BSBM and I/O, continued
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 7): What Does BSBM Explore Measure?
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 8): BSBM Explore and Update
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 9): BSBM With Cluster
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 10): LOD2 and the Benchmark Process
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 11): On the Substance of RDF Benchmarks (this post)
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 12): Our Own BSBM Results Report
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 13): BSBM BI Modifications
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 14): BSBM BI Mix
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 15): BSBM Test Driver Enhancements

Let us talk about what ought to be benchmarked in the context of RDF.

A point that often gets brought up by RDF-ers when talking about benchmarks is that there already exist systems which perform very well at TPC-H and similar workloads, and therefore there is no need for RDF to go there. It is, as it were, somebody else's problem; besides, it is a solved one.

On the other hand, being able to express what is generally expected of a query language might not be a core competence or a competitive edge, but it certainly is a checklist item.

BSBM seems to be adopted as a de facto RDF benchmark, as there indeed is almost nothing else. But we should not lose sight of the fact that this is in fact a relational schema and workload that has just been straightforwardly transformed to RDF. BSBM was made, after all, in part for measuring RDB to RDF mapping. Thus BSBM is no more RDF-ish than a trivially RDF-ized TPC-H would be. TPC-H is however a bit more difficult if also a better thought out benchmark than the BSBM BI Mix proposal. But I do not expect an RDF audience to have any enthusiasm for this as this is indeed a very tough race by now, and besides one in which RDB and SQL will keep some advantage. However, using this as a validation test is meaningful, as there exists a validation dataset and queries that we already have RDF-ized. We could publish these and call this "RDF-H".

In the following I will outline what would constitute an RDF-friendly, scientifically interesting benchmark. The points are in part based on discussions with Peter Boncz of CWI.

The Social Network Intelligence Benchmark (SNIB) takes the social web Facebook-style schema Ivan Mikhailov and I made last year under the name of Botnet BM. In LOD2, CWI is presently working on this.

The data includes DBpedia as a base component used for providing conversation topics, information about geographical locales of simulated users, etc. DBpedia is not very large, around 200M-300M triples, but it is diverse enough.

The data will have correlations, e.g., people who talk about sports tend to know other people who talk about the same sport, and they are more likely to know people from their geographical area than from elsewhere.

The bulk of the data consists of a rich history of interactions including messages to individuals and groups, linking to people, dropping links, joining and leaving groups, and so forth. The messages are tagged using real-world concepts from DBpedia, and there is correlation between tagging and textual content since both are generated from Dbpedia articles. Since there is such correlation, NLP techniques like entity and relationship extraction can be used with the data even though this is not the primary thrust of SNIB.

There is variation in frequency of online interaction, and this interaction consist of sessions. For example, one could analyze user behavior per time of day for online ad placement.

The data probably should include propagating memes, fashions, and trends that travel on the social network. With this, one could query about their origin and speed of propagation.

There should probably be cases of duplicate identities in the data, i.e., one real person using many online accounts to push an agenda. Resolving duplicate identities makes for nice queries.

Ragged data with half-filled profiles and misspelled identifiers like person and place names are a natural part of the social web use case. The data generator should take this into account.

• Distribution of popularity and activity should follow a power-law-like pattern; actual measures of popularity can be sampled from existing social networks even though large quantities of data cannot easily be extracted.

• The dataset should be predictably scalable. For the workload considered, the relative importance of the queries or other measured tasks should not change dramatically with the scale.

For example some queries are logarithmic to data size (e.g., find connections to a person), some are linear (e.g., find average online time of sports fans on Sundays), and some are quadratic or worse (e.g., find two extremists of the same ideology that are otherwise unrelated). Making a single metric from such parts may not be meaningful. Therefore, SNIB might be structured into different workloads.

The first would be an online mix with typically short lookups and updates, around O ( log ( n ) ).

The Business Intelligence Mix would be composed of queries around OO ( n log ( n ) ). Even so, with real data, choice of parameters will provide dramatic changes in query run-time. Therefore a run should be specified to have a predictable distribution of "hard" and "easy" parameter choices. In the BSBM BI mix modification, I did this by defining some to be drill downs from a more general to a more specific level of a hierarchy. This could be done here too in some cases; other cases would have to be defined with buckets of values.

Both the real world and LOD2 are largely concerned with data integration. The SNIB workload can have aspects of this, for example, in resolving duplicate identities. These operations are more complex than typical database queries, as the attributes used for joining might not even match in the initial data.

One characteristic of these is the production of sometimes large intermediate results that need to be materialized. Doing these operations in practice requires procedural control. Further, running algorithms like network analytics (e.g., Page rank, centrality, etc.) involves aggregation of intermediate results that is not very well expressible in a query language. Some basic graph operations like shortest path are expressible but then are not in unextended SPARQL 1.1; as these would for example involve returning paths, which are explicitly excluded from the spec.

These are however the areas where we need to go for a benchmark that is more than a repackaging of a relational BI workload.

We find that such a workload will have procedural sections either in application code or stored procedures. Map-reduce is sometimes used for scaling these. As one would expect, many cluster databases have their own version of these control structures. Therefore some of the SNIB workload could even be implemented as map-reduce jobs alongside parallel database implementations. We might here touch base with the LarKC map-reduce work to see if it could be applied to SNIB workloads.

We see a three-level structure emerging. There is an Online mix which is a bit like the BSBM Explore mix, and an Analytics mix which is on the same order of complexity as TPC-H. These may have a more-or-less fixed query formulation and test driver. Beyond these, yet working on the same data, we have a set of Predefined Tasks which the test sponsor may implement in a manner of their choice.

We would finally get to the "raging conflict" between the "declarativists" and the "map reductionists." Last year's VLDB had a lot of map-reduce papers. I know of comparisons between Vertica and map reduce for doing a fairly simple SQL query on a lot of data, but here we would be talking about much more complex jobs on more interesting (i.e., less uniform) data.

We might even interest some of the cluster RDBMS players (Teradata, Vertica, Greenplum, Oracle Exadata, ParAccel, and/or Aster Data, to name a few) in running this workload using their map-reduce analogs.

We see that as we get to topics beyond relational BI, we do not find ourselves in an RDF-only world but very much at a crossroads of many technologies, e.g., map-reduce and its database analogs, various custom built databases, graph libraries, data integration and cleaning tools, and so forth.

There is not, nor ought there to be, a sheltered, RDF-only enclave. RDF will have to justify itself in a world of alternatives.

This must be reflected in our benchmark development, so relational BI is not irrelevant; in fact, it is what everybody does. RDF cannot be a total failure at this, even if this were not RDF's claim to fame. The claim to fame comes after we pass this stage, which is what we intend to explore in SNIB.

Benchmarks, Redux Series

• Benchmarks, Redux (part 1): On RDF Benchmarks
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 2): A Benchmarking Story
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 3): Virtuoso 7 vs 6 on BSBM Load and Explore
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 4): Benchmark Tuning Questionnaire
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 5): BSBM and I/O; HDDs and SSDs
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 6): BSBM and I/O, continued
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 7): What Does BSBM Explore Measure?
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 8): BSBM Explore and Update
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 9): BSBM With Cluster
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 10): LOD2 and the Benchmark Process
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 11): On the Substance of RDF Benchmarks (this post)
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 12): Our Own BSBM Results Report
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 13): BSBM BI Modifications
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 14): BSBM BI Mix
• Benchmarks, Redux (part 15): BSBM Test Driver Enhancements

I will begin by extending my thanks to the organizers, in specific Reto Krummenacher of STI and Atanas Kiryakov of Ontotext for inviting me to give a position paper at the workshop. Indeed, it is the builders of bridges, the pontifs (pontifex) amongst us who shall be remembered by history. The idea of organizing a semantic data management workshop at VLDB is a laudable attempt at rapprochement between two communities to the advantage of all concerned.

Franz, Ontotext, and OpenLink were the vendors present at the workshop. To summarize very briefly, Jans Aasman of Franz talked about the telco call center automation solution by Amdocs, where the AllegroGraph RDF store is integrated. On the technical side, AllegroGraph has Javascript as a stored procedure language, which is certainly a good idea. Naso of Ontotext talked about the BBC FIFA World Cup site. The technical proposition was that materialization is good and data partitioning is not needed; a set of replicated read-only copies is good enough.

I talked about making RDF cost competitive with relational for data integration and BI. The crux is space efficiency and column store techniques.

One question that came up was that maybe RDF could approach relational in some things, but what about string literals being stored in a separate table? Or URI strings being stored in a separate table?

The answer is that if one accesses a lot of these literals the access will be local and fairly efficient. If one accesses just a few, it does not matter. For user-facing reports, there is no point in returning a million strings that the user will not read anyhow. But then it turned out that there in fact exist reports in bioinformatics where there are 100,000 strings. Now taking the worst abuse of SPARQL, a regexp over all literals in a property of a given class. With a column store this is a scan of the column; with RDF, a three table join. The join is about 10x slower than the column scan. Quite OK, considering that a full text index is the likely solution for such workloads anyway. Besides, a sensible relational schema will also not use strings for foreign keys, and will therefore incur a similar burden from fetching the strings before returning the result.

Another question was about whether the attitude was one of confrontation between RDF and relational and whether it would not be better to join forces. Well, as said in my talk, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and generally speaking relational techniques apply equally to RDF. There are a few RDB tricks that have no RDF equivalent, like clustering a fact table on dimension values, e.g., sales ordered by country, manufacturer, month. But by and large, column-store techniques apply. The execution engine can be essentially identical, just needing a couple of extra data types and some run-time typing and in some cases producing nulls instead of errors. Query optimization is much the same, except that RDB stats are not applicable as such; one needs to sample the data in the cost model. All in all, these adaptations to a RDB are not so large, even though they do require changes to source code.

Another question was about combining data models, e.g., relational (rows and columns), RDF (graph), XML (tree), and full text. Here I would say that it is a fault of our messaging that we do not constantly repeat the necessity of this combining, as we take it for granted. Most RDF stores have a full text index on literal values. OWLIM and a CWI prototype even have it for URIs. XML is a valid data type for an RDF literal, even though this does not get used very much. So doing SPARQL to select the values, and then doing XPath and XSLT on the values, is entirely possible, at least in Virtuoso which has an XPath/XSLT engine built in. Same for invoking SPARQL from an XSLT sheet. Colocating a native RDBMS with local and federated SQL is what Virtuoso has always done. One can, for example, map tables in heterogenous remote RDBs into tables in Virtuoso, then map these into RDF, and run SPARQL queries that get translated into SQL against the original tables, thereby getting SPARQL access without any materialization. Alongside this, one can ETL relational data into RDF via the same declarative mapping.

Further, there are RDF extensions for geospatial queries in Virtuoso and AllegroGraph, and soon also in others.

With all this cross-model operation, RDF is definitely not a closed island. We'll have to repeat this more.

Of the academic papers, the SpiderStore (paper is not yet available at time of writing, but should be soon) and Webpie that should be specially noted.

Let us talk about SpiderStore first.

SpiderStore

The SpiderStore from the University of Innsbruck is a main-memory-only system that has a record for each distinct IRI. The IRI record has one array of pointers to all IRI records that are objects where the referencing record is the subject, and a similar array of pointers to all records where the referencing record is the object. Both sets of pointers are clustered based on the predicate labeling the edge.

According to the authors (Robert Binna, Wolfgang Gassler, Eva Zangerle, Dominic Pacher, and Günther Specht), a distinct IRI is 5 pointers and each triple is 3 pointers. This would make about 4 pointers per triple, i.e., 32 bytes with 64-bit pointers.

This is not particularly memory efficient, since one must count unused space after growing the lists, fragmentation, etc., which will make the space consumption closer to 40 bytes per triple, plus should one add a graph to the mix one would need another pointer per distinct predicate, adding another 1-4 bytes per triple. Supporting non-IRI types in the object position is not a problem, as long as all distinct values have a chunk of memory to them with a type tag.

We get a few times better memory efficiency with column compressed quads, plus we are not limited to main memory.

But SpiderStore has a point. Making the traversal of an edge in the graph into a pointer dereference is not such a bad deal, especially if the data set is not that big. Furthermore, compiling the queries into C procedures playing with the pointers alone would give performance to match or exceed any hard coded graph traversal library and would not be very difficult. Supporting multithreaded updates would spoil much of the gain but allowing single threaded updates and forking read-only copies for reading would be fine.

SpiderStore as such is not attractive for what we intend to do, this being aggregating RDF quads in volumes far exceeding main memory and scaling to clusters. We note that SpiderStore hits problems with distributed memory, since SpiderStore executes depth first, which is manifestly impossible if significant latencies are involved. In other words, if there can be latency, one must amortize by having a lot of other possible work available. Running with long vectors of values is one way, as in MonetDB or Virtuoso Cluster. The other way is to have a massively multithreaded platform which favors code with few instructions but little memory locality. SpiderStore could be a good fit for massive multithreading, specially if queries were compiled to C, dramatically cutting down on the count of instructions to execute.

We too could adopt some ideas from SpiderStore. Namely, if running vectored, one just in passing, without extra overhead, generates an array of links to the next IRI, a bit like the array that SpiderStore has for each predicate for the incoming and outgoing edges of a given IRI. Of course, here these would be persistent IDs and not pointers, but a hash from one to the other takes almost no time. So, while SpiderStore alone may not be what we are after for data warehousing, Spiderizing parts of the working set would not be so bad. This is especially so since the Spiderizable data structure almost gets made as a by-product of query evaluation.

If an algorithm made several passes over a relatively small subgraph of the whole database, Spiderizing it would accelerate things. The memory overhead could have a fixed cap so as not to ruin the working set if locality happened not to hold.

Running a SpiderStore-like execution model on vectors instead of single values would likely do no harm and might even result in better cache behavior. The exception is in the event of completely unpredictable patterns of connections which may only be amortized by massive multithreading.

Webpie

Webpie from VU Amsterdam and the LarKC EU FP 7 project is, as it were, the opposite of SpiderStore. This is a map-reduce-based RDFS and OWL Horst inference engine which is all about breadth-first passes over the data in a map-reduce framework with intermediate disk-based storage.

Webpie is not however a database. After the inference result has been materialized, it must be loaded into a SPARQL engine in order to evaluate a query against the result.

The execution plan of Webpie is made from the ontology whose consequences must be materialized. The steps are sorted and run until a fixed point is reached for each. This is similar to running SPARQL INSERT … SELECT statements until no new inserts are produced. The only requirement is that the INSERT statement should report whether new inserts were actually made. This is easy to do. In this way, a comparison between map-reduce plus memory-based joining and a parallel RDF database could be made.

We have suggested such an experiment to the LarKC people. We will see.

I will begin by extending my thanks to the organizers, in specific Reto Krummenacher of STI and Atanas Kiryakov of Ontotext for inviting me to give a position paper at the workshop. Indeed, it is the builders of bridges, the pontifs (pontifex) amongst us who shall be remembered by history. The idea of organizing a semantic data management workshop at VLDB is a laudable attempt at rapprochement between two communities to the advantage of all concerned.

Franz, Ontotext, and OpenLink were the vendors present at the workshop. To summarize very briefly, Jans Aasman of Franz talked about the telco call center automation solution by Amdocs, where the AllegroGraph RDF store is integrated. On the technical side, AllegroGraph has Javascript as a stored procedure language, which is certainly a good idea. Naso of Ontotext talked about the BBC FIFA World Cup site. The technical proposition was that materialization is good and data partitioning is not needed; a set of replicated read-only copies is good enough.

I talked about making RDF cost competitive with relational for data integration and BI. The crux is space efficiency and column store techniques.

One question that came up was that maybe RDF could approach relational in some things, but what about string literals being stored in a separate table? Or URI strings being stored in a separate table?

The answer is that if one accesses a lot of these literals the access will be local and fairly efficient. If one accesses just a few, it does not matter. For user-facing reports, there is no point in returning a million strings that the user will not read anyhow. But then it turned out that there in fact exist reports in bioinformatics where there are 100,000 strings. Now taking the worst abuse of SPARQL, a regexp over all literals in a property of a given class. With a column store this is a scan of the column; with RDF, a three table join. The join is about 10x slower than the column scan. Quite OK, considering that a full text index is the likely solution for such workloads anyway. Besides, a sensible relational schema will also not use strings for foreign keys, and will therefore incur a similar burden from fetching the strings before returning the result.

Another question was about whether the attitude was one of confrontation between RDF and relational and whether it would not be better to join forces. Well, as said in my talk, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and generally speaking relational techniques apply equally to RDF. There are a few RDB tricks that have no RDF equivalent, like clustering a fact table on dimension values, e.g., sales ordered by country, manufacturer, month. But by and large, column-store techniques apply. The execution engine can be essentially identical, just needing a couple of extra data types and some run-time typing and in some cases producing nulls instead of errors. Query optimization is much the same, except that RDB stats are not applicable as such; one needs to sample the data in the cost model. All in all, these adaptations to a RDB are not so large, even though they do require changes to source code.

Another question was about combining data models, e.g., relational (rows and columns), RDF (graph), XML (tree), and full text. Here I would say that it is a fault of our messaging that we do not constantly repeat the necessity of this combining, as we take it for granted. Most RDF stores have a full text index on literal values. OWLIM and a CWI prototype even have it for URIs. XML is a valid data type for an RDF literal, even though this does not get used very much. So doing SPARQL to select the values, and then doing XPath and XSLT on the values, is entirely possible, at least in Virtuoso which has an XPath/XSLT engine built in. Same for invoking SPARQL from an XSLT sheet. Colocating a native RDBMS with local and federated SQL is what Virtuoso has always done. One can, for example, map tables in heterogenous remote RDBs into tables in Virtuoso, then map these into RDF, and run SPARQL queries that get translated into SQL against the original tables, thereby getting SPARQL access without any materialization. Alongside this, one can ETL relational data into RDF via the same declarative mapping.

Further, there are RDF extensions for geospatial queries in Virtuoso and AllegroGraph, and soon also in others.

With all this cross-model operation, RDF is definitely not a closed island. We'll have to repeat this more.

Of the academic papers, the SpiderStore (paper is not yet available at time of writing, but should be soon) and Webpie that should be specially noted.

Let us talk about SpiderStore first.

SpiderStore

The SpiderStore from the University of Innsbruck is a main-memory-only system that has a record for each distinct IRI. The IRI record has one array of pointers to all IRI records that are objects where the referencing record is the subject, and a similar array of pointers to all records where the referencing record is the object. Both sets of pointers are clustered based on the predicate labeling the edge.

According to the authors (Robert Binna, Wolfgang Gassler, Eva Zangerle, Dominic Pacher, and Günther Specht), a distinct IRI is 5 pointers and each triple is 3 pointers. This would make about 4 pointers per triple, i.e., 32 bytes with 64-bit pointers.

This is not particularly memory efficient, since one must count unused space after growing the lists, fragmentation, etc., which will make the space consumption closer to 40 bytes per triple, plus should one add a graph to the mix one would need another pointer per distinct predicate, adding another 1-4 bytes per triple. Supporting non-IRI types in the object position is not a problem, as long as all distinct values have a chunk of memory to them with a type tag.

We get a few times better memory efficiency with column compressed quads, plus we are not limited to main memory.

But SpiderStore has a point. Making the traversal of an edge in the graph into a pointer dereference is not such a bad deal, especially if the data set is not that big. Furthermore, compiling the queries into C procedures playing with the pointers alone would give performance to match or exceed any hard coded graph traversal library and would not be very difficult. Supporting multithreaded updates would spoil much of the gain but allowing single threaded updates and forking read-only copies for reading would be fine.

SpiderStore as such is not attractive for what we intend to do, this being aggregating RDF quads in volumes far exceeding main memory and scaling to clusters. We note that SpiderStore hits problems with distributed memory, since SpiderStore executes depth first, which is manifestly impossible if significant latencies are involved. In other words, if there can be latency, one must amortize by having a lot of other possible work available. Running with long vectors of values is one way, as in MonetDB or Virtuoso Cluster. The other way is to have a massively multithreaded platform which favors code with few instructions but little memory locality. SpiderStore could be a good fit for massive multithreading, specially if queries were compiled to C, dramatically cutting down on the count of instructions to execute.

We too could adopt some ideas from SpiderStore. Namely, if running vectored, one just in passing, without extra overhead, generates an array of links to the next IRI, a bit like the array that SpiderStore has for each predicate for the incoming and outgoing edges of a given IRI. Of course, here these would be persistent IDs and not pointers, but a hash from one to the other takes almost no time. So, while SpiderStore alone may not be what we are after for data warehousing, Spiderizing parts of the working set would not be so bad. This is especially so since the Spiderizable data structure almost gets made as a by-product of query evaluation.

If an algorithm made several passes over a relatively small subgraph of the whole database, Spiderizing it would accelerate things. The memory overhead could have a fixed cap so as not to ruin the working set if locality happened not to hold.

Running a SpiderStore-like execution model on vectors instead of single values would likely do no harm and might even result in better cache behavior. The exception is in the event of completely unpredictable patterns of connections which may only be amortized by massive multithreading.

Webpie

Webpie from VU Amsterdam and the LarKC EU FP 7 project is, as it were, the opposite of SpiderStore. This is a map-reduce-based RDFS and OWL Horst inference engine which is all about breadth-first passes over the data in a map-reduce framework with intermediate disk-based storage.

Webpie is not however a database. After the inference result has been materialized, it must be loaded into a SPARQL engine in order to evaluate a query against the result.

The execution plan of Webpie is made from the ontology whose consequences must be materialized. The steps are sorted and run until a fixed point is reached for each. This is similar to running SPARQL INSERT … SELECT statements until no new inserts are produced. The only requirement is that the INSERT statement should report whether new inserts were actually made. This is easy to do. In this way, a comparison between map-reduce plus memory-based joining and a parallel RDF database could be made.

We have suggested such an experiment to the LarKC people. We will see.

I was recently asked to write a section for a policy document touching the intersection of database and semantics, as a follow up to the meeting in Sofia I blogged about earlier. I will write about technology, but this same document also touches the matter of education and computer science curricula. Since the matter came up, I will share a few thoughts on the latter topic.

I have over the years trained a few truly excellent engineers and managed a heterogeneous lot of people. These days, since what we are doing is in fact quite difficult and the world is not totally without competition, I find that I must stick to core competence, which is hardcore tech and leave management to those who have time for it.

When younger, I thought that I could, through sheer personal charisma, transfer either technical skills, sound judgment, or drive and ambition to people I was working with. Well, to the extent I believed this, my own judgment was not sound. Transferring anything at all is difficult and chancy. I must here think of a fantasy novel where a wizard said that, "working such magic that makes things do what they already want to do is easy." There is a grain of truth in that.

In order to build or manage organizations, we must work, as the wizard put it, with nature, not against it. There are also counter-examples, for example my wife's grandmother had decided to transform a regular willow into a weeping one by tying down the branches. Such "magic," needless to say, takes constant maintenance; else the spell breaks.

To operate efficiently, either in business or education, we need to steer away from such endeavors. This is a valuable lesson, but now consider teaching this to somebody. Those who would most benefit from this wisdom are the least receptive to it. So again, we are reminded to stay away from the fantasy of being able to transfer some understanding we think to have and to have this take root. It will if it will and if it does not, it will take constant follow up, like the would-be weeping willow.

Now, in more specific terms, what can we realistically expect to teach about computer science?

Complexity of algorithms would be the first thing. Understanding the relative throughputs and latencies of the memory hierarchy (i.e., cache, memory, local network, disk, wide area network) is the second. Understanding the difference of synchronous and asynchronous and the cost of synchronization (i.e., anything from waiting for a mutex to waiting for a network message) is the third.

Understanding how a database works would be immensely helpful for almost any application development task but this is probably asking too much.

Then there is the question of engineering. Where do we put interfaces and what should these interfaces expose? Well, they certainly should expose multiple instances of whatever it is they expose, since passing through an interface takes time.

I tried once to tell the SPARQL committee that parameterized queries and array parameters are a self-evident truism on the database side. This is an example of an interface that exposes multiple instances of what it exposes. But the committee decided not to standardize these. There is something in the "semanticist" mind that is irrationally antagonistic to what is self-evident for databasers. This is further an example of ignoring precept 2 above, the point about the throughputs and latencies in the memory hierarchy. Nature is a better and more patient teacher than I; the point will become clear of itself in due time, no worry.

Interfaces seem to be overvalued in education. This is tricky because we should not teach that interfaces are bad either. Nature has islands of tightly intertwined processes, separated by fairly narrow interfaces. People are taught to think in block diagrams, so they probably project this also where it does not apply, thereby missing some connections and porosity of interfaces.

LarKC (EU FP7 Large Knowledge Collider project) is an exercise in interfaces. The lessons so far are that coupling needs to be tight, and that the roles of the components are not always as neatly separable as the block diagram suggests.

Recognizing the points where interfaces are naturally narrow is very difficult. Teaching this in a curriculum is likely impossible. This is not to say that the matter should not be mentioned and examples of over-"paradigmatism" given. The geek mind likes to latch on to a paradigm (e.g., object orientation), and then they try to put it everywhere. It is safe to say that taking block diagrams too naively or too seriously makes for poor performance and needless code. In some cases, block diagrams can serve as tactical disinformation; i.e., you give lip service to the values of structure, information hiding, and reuse, which one is not allowed to challenge, ever, and at the same time you do not disclose the competitive edge, which is pretty much always a breach of these same principles.

I was once at a data integration workshop in the US where some very qualified people talked about the process of science. They had this delightfully American metaphor for it:

The edge is created in the "Wild West" — there are no standards or hard-and-fast rules, and paradigmatism for paradigmatism's sake is a laughing matter with the cowboys in the fringe where new ground is broken. Then there is the OK Corral, where the cowboys shoot it out to see who prevails. Then there is Dodge City, where the lawman already reigns, and compliance, standards, and paradigms are not to be trifled with, lest one get the tar-and-feather treatment and be "driven out o'Dodge."

So, if reality is like this, what attitude should the curriculum have towards it? Do we make innovators or followers? Well, as said before, they are not made. Or if they are made, they are not at least made in the university but much before that. I never made any of either, in spite of trying, but did meet many of both kinds. The education system needs to recognize individual differences, even though this is against the trend of turning out a standardized product. Enforced mediocrity makes mediocrity. The world has an amazing tolerance for mediocrity, it is true. But the edge is not created with this, if edge is what we are after.

But let us move to specifics of semantic technology. What are the core precepts, the equivalent of the complexity/memory/synchronization triangle of general purpose CS basics? Let us not forget that, especially in semantic technology, when we have complex operations, lots of data, and almost always multiple distributed data sources, forgetting the laws of physics carries an especially high penalty.

• Know when to ontologize, when to folksonomize. The history of standards has examples of "stacks of Babel," sky-high and all-encompassing, which just result in non-communication and non-adoption. Lighter weight, community driven, tag folksonomy, VoCamp-style approaches can be better. But this is a judgment call, entirely contextual, having to do with the maturity of the domain of discourse, etc.

• Answer only questions that are actually asked. This precept is two-pronged. The literal interpretation is not to do inferential closure for its own sake, materializing all implied facts of the knowledge base.

  The broader interpretation is to take real-world problems. Expanding RDFS semantics with map-reduce and proving how many iterations this will take is a thing one can do but real-world problems will be more complex and less neat.

• Deal with ambiguity. Data on which semantic technologies will be applied will be dirty, with errors from machine processing of natural language to erroneous human annotations. The knowledge bases will not be contradiction free. Michael Witbrock of CYC said many good things about this in Sofia; he would have something to say about a curriculum, no doubt.

Here we see that semantic technology is a younger discipline than computer science. We can outline some desirable skills and directions to follow but the idea of core precepts is not as well formed.

So we can approach the question from the angle of needed skills more than of precepts of science. What should the certified semantician be able to do?

• Data integration. Given heterogenous relational schemas talking about the same entities, the semantician should find existing ontologies for the domain, possibly extend these, and then map the relational data to them. After the mapping is conceptually done, the semantician must know what combination of ETL and on-the-fly mapping fits the situation. This does mean that the semantician indeed must understand databases, which I above classified as an almost unreachable ideal. But there is no getting around this. Data is increasingly what makes the world go round. From this it follows that everybody must increasingly publish, consume, and refine, i.e., integrate. The anti-database attitude of the semantic web community simply has to go.

• Design and implement workflows for content extraction, e.g., NLP or information extraction from images. This also means familiarity with NLP, desirably to the point of being able to tune the extraction rule sets of various NLP frameworks.

• Design SOA workflows. The semantician should be able to extract and represent the semantics of business transactions and the data involved therein.

• Lightweight knowledge engineering. The experience of building expert systems from the early days of AI is not the best possible, but with semantics attached to data, some sort of rules seem about inevitable. The rule systems will merge into the DBMS in time. Some ability to work with these, short of making expert systems, will be desirable.

• Understand information quality in the sense of trust, provenance, errors in the information, etc. If the world is run based on data analytics, then one must know what the data in the warehouse means, what accidental and deliberate errors it contains, etc.

Of course, most of these tasks take place at some sort of organizational crossroads or interface. This means that the semantician must have some project management skills; must be capable of effectively communicating with different publics and simply getting the job done, always in the face of organizational inertia and often in the face of active resistance from people who view the semantician as some kind of intruder on their turf.

Now, this is a tall order. The semantician will have to be reasonably versatile technically, reasonably clever, and a self-starter on top. The self-starter aspect is the hardest.

The semanticists I have met are more of the scholar than the IT consultant profile. I say semanticist for the semantic web research people and semantician for the practitioner we are trying to define.

We could start by taking people who already do data integration projects and educating them in some semantic technology. We are here talking about a different breed than the one that by nature gravitates to description logics and AI. Projecting semanticist interests or attributes on this public is a source of bias and error.

If we talk about a university curriculum, the part that cannot be taught is the leadership and self-starter aspect, or whatever makes a good IT consultant. Thus the semantic technology studies must be profiled so as to attract people with this profile. As quoted before, the dream job for each era is a scarce skill that makes value from something that is plentiful in the environment. At this moment and for a few moments to come, this is the data geek, or maybe even semantician profile, if we take data geek past statistics and traditional business intelligence skills.

The semantic tech community, especially the academic branch of it, needs to reinvent itself in order to rise to this occasion. The flavor of the dream job curriculum will be away from the theoretical computer science towards the hands-on of database, large systems performance, and the practicalities of getting data intensive projects delivered.

Related

• Linked Data Driven Data Virtualization for Web-scale Integration (presentation)
• Linked Data and Virtuoso in 2010
• Getting The Linked Data Value Pyramid Layers Right
• Provenance and Reification in Virtuoso
• The Time for RDBMS Primacy Downgrade is Nigh!
• Aspects of RDF to RDF Mapping

I was recently asked to write a section for a policy document touching the intersection of database and semantics, as a follow up to the meeting in Sofia I blogged about earlier. I will write about technology, but this same document also touches the matter of education and computer science curricula. Since the matter came up, I will share a few thoughts on the latter topic.

I have over the years trained a few truly excellent engineers and managed a heterogeneous lot of people. These days, since what we are doing is in fact quite difficult and the world is not totally without competition, I find that I must stick to core competence, which is hardcore tech and leave management to those who have time for it.

When younger, I thought that I could, through sheer personal charisma, transfer either technical skills, sound judgment, or drive and ambition to people I was working with. Well, to the extent I believed this, my own judgment was not sound. Transferring anything at all is difficult and chancy. I must here think of a fantasy novel where a wizard said that, "working such magic that makes things do what they already want to do is easy." There is a grain of truth in that.

In order to build or manage organizations, we must work, as the wizard put it, with nature, not against it. There are also counter-examples, for example my wife's grandmother had decided to transform a regular willow into a weeping one by tying down the branches. Such "magic," needless to say, takes constant maintenance; else the spell breaks.

To operate efficiently, either in business or education, we need to steer away from such endeavors. This is a valuable lesson, but now consider teaching this to somebody. Those who would most benefit from this wisdom are the least receptive to it. So again, we are reminded to stay away from the fantasy of being able to transfer some understanding we think to have and to have this take root. It will if it will and if it does not, it will take constant follow up, like the would-be weeping willow.

Now, in more specific terms, what can we realistically expect to teach about computer science?

Complexity of algorithms would be the first thing. Understanding the relative throughputs and latencies of the memory hierarchy (i.e., cache, memory, local network, disk, wide area network) is the second. Understanding the difference of synchronous and asynchronous and the cost of synchronization (i.e., anything from waiting for a mutex to waiting for a network message) is the third.

Understanding how a database works would be immensely helpful for almost any application development task but this is probably asking too much.

Then there is the question of engineering. Where do we put interfaces and what should these interfaces expose? Well, they certainly should expose multiple instances of whatever it is they expose, since passing through an interface takes time.

I tried once to tell the SPARQL committee that parameterized queries and array parameters are a self-evident truism on the database side. This is an example of an interface that exposes multiple instances of what it exposes. But the committee decided not to standardize these. There is something in the "semanticist" mind that is irrationally antagonistic to what is self-evident for databasers. This is further an example of ignoring precept 2 above, the point about the throughputs and latencies in the memory hierarchy. Nature is a better and more patient teacher than I; the point will become clear of itself in due time, no worry.

Interfaces seem to be overvalued in education. This is tricky because we should not teach that interfaces are bad either. Nature has islands of tightly intertwined processes, separated by fairly narrow interfaces. People are taught to think in block diagrams, so they probably project this also where it does not apply, thereby missing some connections and porosity of interfaces.

LarKC (EU FP7 Large Knowledge Collider project) is an exercise in interfaces. The lessons so far are that coupling needs to be tight, and that the roles of the components are not always as neatly separable as the block diagram suggests.

Recognizing the points where interfaces are naturally narrow is very difficult. Teaching this in a curriculum is likely impossible. This is not to say that the matter should not be mentioned and examples of over-"paradigmatism" given. The geek mind likes to latch on to a paradigm (e.g., object orientation), and then they try to put it everywhere. It is safe to say that taking block diagrams too naively or too seriously makes for poor performance and needless code. In some cases, block diagrams can serve as tactical disinformation; i.e., you give lip service to the values of structure, information hiding, and reuse, which one is not allowed to challenge, ever, and at the same time you do not disclose the competitive edge, which is pretty much always a breach of these same principles.

I was once at a data integration workshop in the US where some very qualified people talked about the process of science. They had this delightfully American metaphor for it:

The edge is created in the "Wild West" — there are no standards or hard-and-fast rules, and paradigmatism for paradigmatism's sake is a laughing matter with the cowboys in the fringe where new ground is broken. Then there is the OK Corral, where the cowboys shoot it out to see who prevails. Then there is Dodge City, where the lawman already reigns, and compliance, standards, and paradigms are not to be trifled with, lest one get the tar-and-feather treatment and be "driven out o'Dodge."

So, if reality is like this, what attitude should the curriculum have towards it? Do we make innovators or followers? Well, as said before, they are not made. Or if they are made, they are not at least made in the university but much before that. I never made any of either, in spite of trying, but did meet many of both kinds. The education system needs to recognize individual differences, even though this is against the trend of turning out a standardized product. Enforced mediocrity makes mediocrity. The world has an amazing tolerance for mediocrity, it is true. But the edge is not created with this, if edge is what we are after.

But let us move to specifics of semantic technology. What are the core precepts, the equivalent of the complexity/memory/synchronization triangle of general purpose CS basics? Let us not forget that, especially in semantic technology, when we have complex operations, lots of data, and almost always multiple distributed data sources, forgetting the laws of physics carries an especially high penalty.

• Know when to ontologize, when to folksonomize. The history of standards has examples of "stacks of Babel," sky-high and all-encompassing, which just result in non-communication and non-adoption. Lighter weight, community driven, tag folksonomy, VoCamp-style approaches can be better. But this is a judgment call, entirely contextual, having to do with the maturity of the domain of discourse, etc.

• Answer only questions that are actually asked. This precept is two-pronged. The literal interpretation is not to do inferential closure for its own sake, materializing all implied facts of the knowledge base.

  The broader interpretation is to take real-world problems. Expanding RDFS semantics with map-reduce and proving how many iterations this will take is a thing one can do but real-world problems will be more complex and less neat.

• Deal with ambiguity. Data on which semantic technologies will be applied will be dirty, with errors from machine processing of natural language to erroneous human annotations. The knowledge bases will not be contradiction free. Michael Witbrock of CYC said many good things about this in Sofia; he would have something to say about a curriculum, no doubt.

Here we see that semantic technology is a younger discipline than computer science. We can outline some desirable skills and directions to follow but the idea of core precepts is not as well formed.

So we can approach the question from the angle of needed skills more than of precepts of science. What should the certified semantician be able to do?

• Data integration. Given heterogenous relational schemas talking about the same entities, the semantician should find existing ontologies for the domain, possibly extend these, and then map the relational data to them. After the mapping is conceptually done, the semantician must know what combination of ETL and on-the-fly mapping fits the situation. This does mean that the semantician indeed must understand databases, which I above classified as an almost unreachable ideal. But there is no getting around this. Data is increasingly what makes the world go round. From this it follows that everybody must increasingly publish, consume, and refine, i.e., integrate. The anti-database attitude of the semantic web community simply has to go.

• Design and implement workflows for content extraction, e.g., NLP or information extraction from images. This also means familiarity with NLP, desirably to the point of being able to tune the extraction rule sets of various NLP frameworks.

• Design SOA workflows. The semantician should be able to extract and represent the semantics of business transactions and the data involved therein.

• Lightweight knowledge engineering. The experience of building expert systems from the early days of AI is not the best possible, but with semantics attached to data, some sort of rules seem about inevitable. The rule systems will merge into the DBMS in time. Some ability to work with these, short of making expert systems, will be desirable.

• Understand information quality in the sense of trust, provenance, errors in the information, etc. If the world is run based on data analytics, then one must know what the data in the warehouse means, what accidental and deliberate errors it contains, etc.

Of course, most of these tasks take place at some sort of organizational crossroads or interface. This means that the semantician must have some project management skills; must be capable of effectively communicating with different publics and simply getting the job done, always in the face of organizational inertia and often in the face of active resistance from people who view the semantician as some kind of intruder on their turf.

Now, this is a tall order. The semantician will have to be reasonably versatile technically, reasonably clever, and a self-starter on top. The self-starter aspect is the hardest.

The semanticists I have met are more of the scholar than the IT consultant profile. I say semanticist for the semantic web research people and semantician for the practitioner we are trying to define.

We could start by taking people who already do data integration projects and educating them in some semantic technology. We are here talking about a different breed than the one that by nature gravitates to description logics and AI. Projecting semanticist interests or attributes on this public is a source of bias and error.

If we talk about a university curriculum, the part that cannot be taught is the leadership and self-starter aspect, or whatever makes a good IT consultant. Thus the semantic technology studies must be profiled so as to attract people with this profile. As quoted before, the dream job for each era is a scarce skill that makes value from something that is plentiful in the environment. At this moment and for a few moments to come, this is the data geek, or maybe even semantician profile, if we take data geek past statistics and traditional business intelligence skills.

The semantic tech community, especially the academic branch of it, needs to reinvent itself in order to rise to this occasion. The flavor of the dream job curriculum will be away from the theoretical computer science towards the hands-on of database, large systems performance, and the practicalities of getting data intensive projects delivered.

Related

• Linked Data Driven Data Virtualization for Web-scale Integration (presentation)
• Linked Data and Virtuoso in 2010
• Getting The Linked Data Value Pyramid Layers Right
• Provenance and Reification in Virtuoso
• The Time for RDBMS Primacy Downgrade is Nigh!
• Aspects of RDF to RDF Mapping