OpenLink Virtuoso (Product Blog)

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.

The European Commission recently circulated a questionnaire to selected experts on what could be done for the future of big data.

Since the questionnaire is public, I am publishing my answers below.

1. Data and data types

   1. What volumes of data are we dealing with today? What is the growth rate? Where can we expect to be in 2015?

      Private data warehouses of corporations have more than doubled yearly for the past years; hundreds of TB is not exceptional. This will continue. The real shift is in structured data being published in increasing quantities with a minimum level of integrate-ability through use of RDF and linked data principles. There are rewards for use of standard vocabularies and identifiers through search engines recognizing such data. There is convergence around DBpedia identifiers for real-world entities, e.g., most things that would be in the news.

      This also means that internal data processes and silos may be enriched with this content. There is consequent pressure for accommodating more diversity of data, with more flexible schema.

      Ultimately, all content presently stored in RDBs and presented in public accessible dynamic web pages will end up on the web of linked data. Examples are product catalogs, price lists, event schedules and the like.

      The volume of the well known linked data sets is around 10 billion statements. With the above mentioned trends, growth by two or three orders of magnitude by 2015 seems reasonable, This is so especially if explicit semantics are extracted from the document web and if there is some further progress in the precision/recall of such extraction.

      Relevant sections of this mass of data are a potential addition to any present or future analytics application.

      Since arbitrary analytics over the database which is the web cannot be economically provided by a centralized search engine, a cloud model may be used for on-demand selection of relevant data and mixing it with private data. This will drive database innovation for the next years even more than the continued classical warehouse growth.

      Science data is another driver of the data overflow. For example, faster gene sequencing, more accurate measurements in high energy physics, better imaging, and remote sensing will produce large volumes of data. This data has highly regular structure but labeling this data with source and lineage calls for a flexible, schema-last, self-describing model, such as RDF and linked data. Data and metadata should travel together but may have different data models.

      By and large, the metadata of science data will be another stream to the web of linked data, at least to the degree it is publicly accessible. Restricted circles can and likely will implement similar ideas.

   2. What types of data can we deal with intelligently due to their inherent structure (geospatial, temporal, social or knowledge graphs, 3D, sensor streams...)?

      All the above types should be supported inside one DBMS so as to allow efficient querying combining conditions on all these types of data, e.g., photos of sunsets taken last summer in Ibiza, with over 20 megapixels, by people I know.

      Note that the test for being a sunset is an operation on the image blob that should be taken to the data; the images cannot be economically transferred.

      Interleaving of all database functions and types becomes increasingly important.

2. Industries, communities

   1. Who is producing these data and why? Could they do it better? How?

      Right now, projects such as Bio2RDF, Neurocommons, and DBPedia produce this data. The processes are in place and are reasonable. Incremental improvement is to be expected. These processes, along with the linked data meme generally taking off, drive demand for better NLP (Natural Language Processing), e.g., entity and relationship extraction, especially extraction that can produce instance data in given ontologies (e.g., events) using common identifiers (e.g., DBPedia URIs).

      Mapping of RDBs to RDF is possible, and a W3C working group is developing standards for this. The required baseline level has been reached; the rest is a matter of automating deployment. Within the enterprise, there are advantages to be gained for information integration; e.g., all entities in the CRM space can be integrated with all email and support tickets through giving everything a URI. Some of this information may even be published on an extranet for self-service and web-service interfaces. This has been done at small scales and the rest is a matter of spreading adoption and lowering the entry barrier. Incremental progress will take place, eventually resulting in qualitatively better integration along the value chain when adoption is sufficiently widespread.

   2. Who is consuming these data and why? Could they do it better? How?

      Consumers are various. The greatest need is for tools that summarize complex data and allow getting a bird's eye view of what data is in the first instance available. Consuming the data is hindered by the user not even necessarily knowing what data there is. This is somewhat new, as traditionally the business analyst did know the schema of the warehouse and was proficient with SQL report generators and statistics packages.

      Where Web 2.0 made the citizen journalist, the web of linked data will make the citizen analyst. For this to happen, with benefits for individuals, enterprises, and governments alike, more work in user interfaces, knowledge discovery, and query composition will be useful. We may envision a "meshup economy" where data is plentiful, but the unit of value and exchange is the smart report that crystallizes actionable value from this ocean.

   3. What industrial sectors in Europe could become more competitive if they became much better at managing data?

      Any sector could benefit. Early adopters are seen in the biomedical field and to an extent in media.

   4. Is the regulation landscape imposing constraints (privacy, compliance ...) that don't have today good tool support?

      The regulation landscape drives database demand through data retention requirements and the like.

      With data integration, especially with privacy-sensitive data (as in medicine), there are issues of whether one dares put otherwise-shareable information online. Regulation is needed to protect individuals, but integration should still be possible for science.

      For this, we see a need for progress in applying policy-based approaches (e.g., row level security) to relatively schema-last data such as RDF. This is possible but needs some more work. Also, creating on-the-fly-anonymizing views on data might help.

      More research is needed for reconciling the need for security with the advantages of broad-based ad hoc integration. Ideally, data should be intelligent, aware of its origins and classification and cautious of whom it interacts with, all of this supported under the covers so that the user could ask anything but the data might refuse to answer or might restrict answers according to the user's profile. This is a tall order and implementing something of the sort is an open question.

   5. What are the main practical problem identified for individuals and organizations? Please give examples and tell us about the main obstacles and barriers.

      We have come across the following:

      • Knowing that the data exists in the first place.
      • If the data is found, figuring out the provenance, units and precision of measurement, identifiers, and the like.
      • Compatible subject matter but incompatible representation: For example, one has numbers on a map with different maps for different points in time; another has time series of instrument data with geo-location for the instrument. It is only to be expected that the time interval between measurements is not the same. So there is need for a lot of one-off programming to align data.

      Other problems have to do with sheer volume, i.e., transfer of data even in a local area network is too slow, let alone over a wide area network. Computation needs to go to the data, and databases need to support this.

3. Services, software stacks, protocols, standards, benchmarks

   1. What combinations of components are needed to deal with these problems?

      Recent times have seen a proliferation of special purpose databases. Since the data needs of the future are about combining data with maximum agility and minimum performance hit, there is need to gather the currently-separate functionality into an integrated system with sufficient flexibility. We see some of this in integration of map-reduce and scale-out databases. The former antagonists have become partners. Vertica, Greenplum, and OpenLink Virtuoso are example of DBMS featuring work in this direction.

      Interoperability and at least de facto standards in ways of doing this will emerge.

   2. What data exchange and processing mechanisms will be needed to work across platforms and programming languages?

      HTTP, XML, and RDF are in fact very verbose, yet these are the formats and models that have uptake. Thus, these will continue to be used even though one might think binary formats to be more efficient.

      There are of course science data set standards that are more compressed and these will continue, hopefully adding a practice of rich metadata in RDF.

      For internals of systems, MPI and TCP/IP with proprietary optimized wire formats will continue. Inter-system communication will likely continue to be HTTP, XML, and RDF as appropriate.

   3. What data environments are today so wastefully messy that they would benefit from the development of standards?

      RDF and OWL are not messy but they could use some more performance; we are working on this. SPARQL is finally acquiring the capabilities of a serious query language, so things are slowly coming together.

      Community process for developing application domain specific vocabularies works quite well, even though one could argue it is ad hoc and not up to what a modeling purist might wish.

      Top-down imposition of standards has a mixed history, with long and expensive development and sometimes no or little uptake, consider some WS* standards for example.

   4. What kind of performance is expected or required of these systems? Who will measure it reliably? How?

      Relational databases have a history of substantial investment in optimization and some of them are very good for what they do, e.g., the newer generation of analytics databases.

      The very large schema-last, no-SQL, sometimes eventually consistent key-value stores have a somewhat shorter history but do fill a real need.

      These trends will merge: Extreme scale, schema-last, complex queries, even more complex inference, custom code for in-database machine learning and other bulk processing.

      We find RDF augmented with some binary types at this crossroads. This point of the design space will have to provide performance roughly on the level of today's best relational solution for workloads that fit the relational model. The added cost of schema-last and inference must come down. We are working on this. Research work such as carried out with MonetDB gives clues as to how these aims can be reached.

      The separation of query language and inference is artificial. After the concepts are mature, these functions will merge and execute close to the data; there are clear evolutionary pressures in this direction.

      Benchmarks are key. Some gain can be had even from repurposing standard relational benchmarks like TPC-H. But the TPC-H rules do not allow official reporting of such.

      Development of benchmarks for RDF, complex queries, and inference is needed. A bold challenge to the community, it should be rooted in real-life integration needs and involve high heterogeneity. A key-value store benchmark might also be conceived. A transaction benchmark like TPC-C might be the basis, maybe augmented with massive user-generated content like reviews and blogs.

      If benchmarks exist and are not too easy nor inaccessibly difficult nor too expensive to run — think of the high end TPC-C results — then TPC-style rules and processes would be quite adequate. The threshold to publish should be lowered: Everybody runs the TPC workloads internally but few publish.

      Some EC initiative for benchmarking could make sense, similar to the TREC initiative of the US government. Industry should be consulted for the specific content; possibly the answers to the present questionnaire can provide an approximate direction.

      Benchmarks should be run by software vendors on their own systems, tuned by themselves. But there should be a process of disclosure and auditing; the TPC rules give an example. Compliance should not be too expensive or time consuming. Some community development for automating these things would be a worthwhile target for EC funding.

4. Usability and training

   1. How difficult will it be for a developer of average competence to deploy components whose core is based on rather deep computer science? Do we all need to understand Monads and Continuations? What can be done to make it ever easier?

      In the database world, huge advances in technology have taken place behind a relatively simple and stable interface: SQL. For the linked data web, the same will take place behind SPARQL.

      Beyond these, for example, programming with MPI with good utilization of a cluster platform for an arbitrary algorithm, is quite difficult. The casual amateur is hereby warned.

      There is no single solution. For automatic parallelization, since explicit, programmatic parallelization of things with MPI for example is very unscalable in terms of required skill, we should favor declarative and/or functional approaches.

      Developing a debugger and explanation engine for rule-based and description-logics-based inference would be an idea.

      For procedural workloads, things like Erlang may be good in cases and are not overly difficult in principle, especially if there are good debugging facilities.

      For shipping functions in a cluster or cloud, the BOOM (Berkeley Orders Of Magnitude) approach or logic programming with explicit specification of compute location seem promising, surely more flexible than map-reduce. The question is whether a PHP developer can be made to do logic programming.

      This bridge will be crossed only with actual need and even then reluctantly. We may look at the Web 2.0 practice of sharding MySQL, inconvenient as this may be, for an example. There is inertia and thus re-architecting is a constant process that is generally in reaction to facts, post hoc, often a point solution. One could argue that planning ahead would be smarter but by and large the world does not work so.

      One part of the answer is an infinitely-scalable SQL database that expands and shrinks in the clouds, with the usual semantics, maybe optional eventual consistency and built-in map reduce. If such a thing is inexpensive enough and syntax-level-compatible with present installed base, many developers do not have to learn very much more.

      This is maybe good for the bread-and-butter IT, but European competitiveness should not rest on this. Therefore we wish to go for bold new application types for which the client-server database application is not the model. Data-centric languages like BOOM, if they can be made very efficient and have good debugging support, are attractive there. These do require more intellectual investment but that is not a problem since the less-inquisitive part of the developer community is served by the first part of the answer.

   2. How is a developer of average skills going to learn about these new advanced tools? How can we plan for excellent documentation and training, community mentoring, exchange of good practices, etc... across all EU countries?

      For the most part, developers do not learn things for the sake of learning. When they have learned something and it is adequate, they stay with it for the most part and are even reluctant to engage in cross-camps interaction. The research world is often similarly insular. A new inflection in the application landscape is needed to drive learning. This inflection is provided by the ubiquity of mobile devices, sensor data, explicit semantics, NLP concept extraction, web of linked data, and such factors.

      RDFa is a good example of a new technique piggybacking on something everybody uses, namely HTML. These new things should, within possibility, be deployed in the usual technology stack, LAMP or Java. Of course these do not have to be LAMP or Java or HTML or HTTP themselves but they must manifest through these.

      A lot of the semantic web potential can be realized within the client-server database application model, thus no fundamental re-architecting, just some new data types and queries.

      For data- or processing-intensive tasks, an on-demand hookup to cloud-based servers with Erlang and/or BOOM for programming model would be easy enough to learn and utilize.

      The question is one of providing challenges. Addressing actual challenges with these techniques will lead to maturity, documentation, examples, and training. With virtual, Europe-wide distributed teams a reality in many places, Europe-wide dissemination is no longer insurmountable.

      As the data overflow proceeds, its victims will multiply and create demand for solutions. The EC could here encourage research project use cases gaining an extended life past the end of research projects, possibly being maintained and multiplied and spun off.

      If such things could be mutated into self-sustaining service businesses with pay-per-use revenue, say through a cloud SaaS business model, still primarily leveraging an open source technology stack, we could have self-propagating and self-supporting models for exploiting advanced IT. This would create interest, and interest would drive training and dissemination.

      The problem is creating the pull.

5. Challenges

   1. What should be, in this domain, the equivalent of the Netflix challenge, Ansari X Prize, Google Lunar X Prize, etc. ... ?

      The EC itself no doubt suffers from data overflow in one function or another. Unless security/secrecy prohibits, simply publishing a large data set and a description of what operations should be done on it would be a start. The more real the data, the better — reality is consistently more complex and surprising than imagination. Since many interesting problems touch on fraud detection and law enforcement, there may be some security obstacles for using these application domains as subject matters of open challenges.

      Once there is a good benchmark, as discussed above, there can be some prize money allocated for the winners, specially if the race is tight.

      The Semantic Web Challenge and the Billion Triples Challenge exist and are useful as such, but do not seem to have any huge impact.

      The incentives should be sufficient and part of the expenses arising from running for such challenges could be funded. Otherwise investing in existing business development will be more interesting to industry. Some industry participation seems necessary; we would wish academia and industry to work closer. Also, having industry supply the baseline guarantees that academia actually does further the state of the art. This is not always certain.

      If challenges are based on actual problems, whether of the EC, its member governments, or private entities, and winning the challenge may lead to a contract for supplying an actual solution, these will naturally become more interesting for consortia involving integrators, specialist software vendors, and academia. Such a model would build actual capacity to deploy leading edge technologies in production, which is sorely needed.

   2. What should one do to set up such a challenge, administer, and monitor it?

      The EC should probably circulate a call for actual problem scenarios involving big data. If the matter of the overflow is as dire as represented, cases should be easy to find. A few should be selected and then anonymized if needed.

      The party with the use case would benefit by having hopefully the best work on it. The contestants would benefit from having real world needs guide R&D. The EC would not have to do very much, except possibly use some money for funding the best proposals. The winner would possibly get a large account and related sales and service income. The contestants would have to be teams possibly involving many organizations; for example, development and first-line services and support could come from different companies along a systems integrator model such as is widely used in the US.

      There may be a good benchmark at the time, possibly resulting from FP7 itself. In such a case, the EC could offer a prize for winners. Details would have to be worked out case by case. Such a challenge could be repeated a few times, as benchmark-driven progress in databases or TREC for example have taken some years to reach a point of slowdown in progress.

      Administrating such an activity should not be prohibitive, as most of the expertise can be found with the stakeholders.

We have received some more questions about Virtuoso's parallel query evaluation model.

In answer, we will here explain how we do search engine style processing by writing SPARQL. There is no need for custom procedural code because the query optimizer does all the partitioning and the equivalent of map reduce.

The point is that what used to require programming can often be done in a generic query language. The technical detail is that the implementation must be smart enough with respect to parallelizing queries for this to be of practical benefit. But by combining these two things, we are a step closer to the web being the database.

I will here show how we do some joins combining full text, RDF conditions, and aggregates and ORDER BY. The sample task is finding the top 20 entities with New York in some attribute value. Then we specify the search further by only taking actors associated with New York. The results are returned in the order of a composite of entity rank and text match score.

The basic query is:

SELECT 
  ( 
    sql:s_sum_page 
      ( 
        <sql:vector_agg> 
          (
            <bif:vector> ( ?c1 , ?sm )
          ), 
        bif:vector 
          ( 'new', 'york' )
      )
  ) AS ?res
WHERE 
  {
    { 
      SELECT 
        ( 
          <SHORT_OR_LONG::>(?s1) 
        ) AS ?c1
        ( 
          <sql:S_SUM> 
            (
               <SHORT_OR_LONG::IRI_RANK>  ( ?s1 )      ,
               <SHORT_OR_LONG::>          ( ?s1textp ) ,
               <SHORT_OR_LONG::>          ( ?o1 ) ,
               ?sc 
             )
         ) AS ?sm
      WHERE 
        { 
          ?s1  ?s1textp      ?o1             . 
          ?o1  bif:contains  "new AND york" 
            OPTION ( SCORE ?sc )
        }
      ORDER BY 
        DESC 
          ( 
            <sql:sum_rank> 
              ((
                 <sql:S_SUM> 
                   (
                     <SHORT_OR_LONG::IRI_RANK> ( ?s1 )      ,
                     <SHORT_OR_LONG::>         ( ?s1textp ) ,
                     <SHORT_OR_LONG::>         ( ?o1 )      ,
                     ?sc 
                   ) 
              )) 
          ) 
        LIMIT 20 
    } 
  }

This takes some explaining. The basic part is

{ 
  ?s1  ?s1textp      ?o1             . 
  ?o1  bif:contains  "new AND york"  
    OPTION ( SCORE ?sc )
}

This just makes tuples where ?s1 is the object, ?s1textp the property, and ?o1 the literal which contains "New York". For a single ?s1, there can of course be many properties which all contain "New York".

The rest of the query gathers all the "New York" containing properties of an entity into a single aggregate, and then gets the entity ranks of all such entities.

After this, the aggregates are sorted by a sum of the entity rank and a combined text score calculated based on the individual text match scores between "New York" and the strings containing "New York". The text hit score is higher if the words repeat often and in close proximity.

The s_sum function is a user-defined aggregate which takes 4 arguments: The rank of the subject of the triple; the predicate of the triple containing the text; the object of the triple containing the text; and the text match score.

These are grouped by the subject of the triple. After this, these are sorted by sum_score of the aggregate constructed with s_sum. The sum_score is a SQL function combining the entity rank with the text scores of the different literals.

This executes as one would expect: All partitions make a text index lookup, retrieving the object of the triple. The text index entries of an object are stored in the same partition as the object. But the entity rank is a property of the subject and is partitioned by the subject. Also the GROUP BY is by the subject. Thus the data is produced from all partitions, then streamed into the receiving partitions, determined by the subject. This partition can then get the score and group the matches by the subject. Since all these partial aggregates are partitioned by the subject, there is no need to merge them; thus, the top k sort can be done for each partition separately. Finally, the top 20 of each partition are merged into the global top 20. This is then passed to a final function s_sum_page that turns this all into an XML fragment that can be processed with XSLT for inclusion on a web page.

This differs from the text search engine in that the query pipeline can contain arbitrary cross-partition joins. Also, the string "New York" is a common label that occurs in many distinct entities. Thus one text match, to one document, in the case the containing only the string "New York" will get many entities, likely all from different partitions.

So, if we only want actors with a mention of "New York", we need to get the inner part of the query as:

{ 
  ?s1  ?s1textp      ?o1            . 
  ?o1  bif:contains  "new AND york"  
    OPTION ( SCORE ?sc )              . 
  ?s1  a             <http://umbel.org/umbel/sc/Actor> 
}

Whether an entity is an actor can be checked in the same partition as the rank of the entity. Thus the query plan gets this check right before getting the rank. This is natural since there is no point in getting the rank of something that is not an actor.

The <short_or_long::sql:func> notation means that we call func, which is a SQL stored procedure with the arguments in their internal form. Thus, if a variable bound to an IRI is passed, the short_or_long specifies that it is passed as its internal ID and is not converted into its text form. This is essential, since there is no point getting the text of half a million IRIs when only 20 at most will be shown in the end.

Now, when we run this on a collection of 4.5 billion triples of linked data, once we have the working set, we can get the top 20 "New York" occurrences, with text summaries and all, in just 1.1s, with 12 of 16 cores busy. (The hardware is two boxes with two quad-core Xeon 5345 each.)

If we run this query in two parallel sessions, we get both results in 1.9s, with 14 of 16 cores busy. This gets about 200K "New York" strings, which becomes about 400K entities with New York somewhere, for which a rank then has to be retrieved. After this, all the possibly-many occurrences of New York in the title, text, and other properties of the entity are aggregated together, resolving into some 220K groups. These are then sorted. This is internally over 1.5 million random lookups and some 40MB of traffic between processes. Restricting the type of the entity to actor drops the execution time of one query to 0.8s because there are then fewer ranks to retrieve and less data to aggregate and sort.

By adding partitions and cores, we scale horizontally, as evaluating the query involves almost no central control, even though data are swapped between partitions. There is some flow control to avoid constructing overly-large intermediate results but generally partitions run independently and asynchronously. In the above case, there is just one fence at the point where all aggregates are complete, so that they can be sorted; otherwise, all is asynchronous.

Doing JOINs between partitions and partitioned GROUP BY/ORDER BY is pretty regular database stuff. Applying this to RDF is a most natural thing.

If we do not parallelize the user-defined aggregate for grouping all the "New York" occurrences, the query takes 8s instead of 1.1s. If we could not put SQL procedures as user-defined aggregates to be parallelized with the query, we'd have to either bring all the data to a central point before the top k, which would destroy performance, or we would have to do procedures with explicit parallel procedure calls which is hard to write, surely too hard for ad hoc queries.

Engineering matters. If we wish to commoditize queries on a lot of data, such intelligence in the DBMS is necessary; it is very unscalable to require people to do procedural code or give query parallelization hints. If you need to optimize a workload of 10 different transactions, this is of course possible and even desirable, but for the infinity of all search or analysis, this will not happen.

(First of five posts related to the WWW 2009 conference, held the week of April 20, 2009.)

We gave a talk at the Linked Open Data workshop, LDOW 2009, at WWW 2009. I did not go very far into the technical points in the talk, as there was almost no time and the points are rather complex. Instead, I emphasized what new things had become possible with recent developments.

The problem we do not cease hearing about is scale. We have solved most of it. There is scale in the schema: Put together, ontologies go over a million classes/properties. Which ones are relevant depends, and the user should have the choice. The instance data is in the tens of billions of triples, much derived from Web 2.0 sources but also much published as RDF.

To make sense of this all, we need quick summaries and search. Without navigation via joins, the value will be limited. Fast joining, counting, grouping, and ranking are key.

People will use different terms for the same thing. The issue of identity is philosophical. In order to do reasoning one needs strong identity; a statement like x is a bit like y is not very useful in a database context. Whether any x and y can be considered the same depends on the context. So leave this for query time. The conditions under which two people are considered the same will depend on whether you are doing marketing analysis or law enforcement. A general purpose data store cannot anticipate all the possibilities, so smush on demand, as you go, as has been said many times.

Against this backdrop, we offer a solution with which anybody who so chooses can play with big data, whether a search or analytics player.

We are going in the direction of more and more ad hoc processing at larger and larger scale. With good query parallelization, we can do big joins without complex programming. No explicit Map Reduce jobs or the like. What was done with special code with special parallel programming models, can now be done in SQL and SPARQL.

To showcase this, we do linked data search, browsing, and so on, but are essentially a platform provider.

Entry costs into relatively high end databases have dropped significantly. A cluster with 1 TB of RAM sells for $75K or so at today's retail prices and fits under a desk. For intermittent use, the rent for 1TB RAM is $1228 per day on EC2. With this on one side and Virtuoso on the other, a lot that was impractical in the past is now within reach. Like Giovanni Tummarello put it for airplanes, the physics are as they were for da Vinci but materials and engines had to develop a bit before there was commercial potential. So it is also with analytics for everyone.

A remark from the audience was that all the stuff being shown, not limited to Virtuoso, was non-standard, having to do with text search, with ranking, with extensions, and was in fact not SPARQL and pure linked data principles. Further, by throwing this all together, one got something overcomplicated, too heavy.

I answered as follows, which apparently cannot be repeated too much:

First, everybody expects a text search box, and is conditioned to having one. No text search and no ranking is a non-starter. Ceterum censeo, for database, the next generation cannot be less expressive than the previous. All of SQL and then some is where SPARQL must be. The barest minimum is being able to say anything one can say in SQL, and then justify SPARQL by saying that it is better for heterogenous data, schema last, and so on. On top of this, transitivity and rules will not hurt. For now, the current SPARQL working group will at least reach basic SQL parity; the edge will still remain implementation dependent.

Another remark was that joining is slow. Depends. Anything involving more complex disk access than linear reading of a blob is generally not good for interactive use. But with adequate memory, and with all hot spots in memory, we do some 3.2 million random-accesses-per-second on 12 cores, with easily 80% platform utilization for a single large query. The high utilization means that times drop as processing gets divided over more partitions.

There was a talk about MashQL by Mustafa Jarrar, concerning an abstraction on top of SPARQL for easy composition of tree-structured queries. The idea was that such queries can be evaluated "on the fly" as they are being composed. As it happens, we already have an XML-based query abstraction layer incorporated into Virtuoso 6.0's built-in Faceted Data Browser Service, and the effects are probably quite similar. The most important point here is that by using XML, both of these approaches are interoperable against a Virtuoso back-end. Along similar lines, we did not get to talk to the G Facets people but our message to them is the same: Use the faceted browser service to get vastly higher performance when querying against Linked Data, be it DBpedia or the entity LOD Cloud. Virtuoso 6.0 (Open Source Edition) "TP1" is now publicly available as a Technology Preview (beta).

We heard that there is an effort for porting Freebase's Parallax to SPARQL. The same thing applies to this. With a number of different data viewers on top of SPARQL, we come closer to broad-audience linked-data applications. These viewers are still too generic for the end user, though. We fully believe that for both search and transactions, application-domain-specific workflows will stay relevant. But these can be made to a fair degree by specializing generic linked-data-bound controls and gluing them together with some scripting.

As said before, the application will interface the user to the vocabulary. The vocabulary development takes the modeling burden from the application and makes for interchangeable experience on the same data. The data in turn is "virtualized" into the database cloud or the local secure server, as the use case may require.

For ease of adoption, open competition, and safety from lock-in, the community needs a SPARQL whose usability is not totally dependent on vendor extensions. But we might de facto have that in just a bit, whenever there is a working draft from the SPARQL WG.

Another topic that we encounter often is the question of integration (or lack thereof) between communities. For example, database conferences reject semantic web papers and vice versa. Such politics would seem to emerge naturally but are nonetheless detrimental. We really should partner with people who write papers as their principal occupation. We ourselves do software products and use very little time for papers, so some of the bad reviews we have received do make a legitimate point. By rights, we should go for database venues but we cannot have this take too much time. So we are open to partnering for splitting the opportunity cost of multiple submissions.

For future work, there is nothing radically new. We continue testing and productization of cluster databases. Just deliver what is in the pipeline. The essential nature of this is adding more and more cases of better and better parallelization in different query situations. The present usage patterns work well for finding bugs and performance bottlenecks. For presentation, our goal is to have third party viewers operate with our platform. We cannot completely leave data browsing and UI to third parties since we must from time to time introduce various unique functionality. Most interaction should however go via third party applications.

Why not see the whole world of data as facets? Well, we'd like to, but there is the feeling that this is not practical.

The old problem has been that it is not really practical to pre-compute counts of everything for all possible combinations of search conditions and counting/grouping/sorting. The actual matches take time.

Well, neither is in fact necessary. When there are large numbers of items matching the conditions, counting them can take time but then this is the beginning of the search, and the user is not even likely to look very closely at the counts. It is enough to see that there are many of one and few of another. If the user already knows the precise predicate or class to look for, then the top-level faceted view is not even needed. The faceted view for guiding search and precise analytics are two different problems.

There are client-side faceted views like Exhibit or our own ODE. The problem with these is that there are a few orders of magnitude difference between the actual database size and what fits on the user agent. This is compounded by the fact that one does not know what to cache on the user agent because of the open nature of the data web. If this were about a fixed workflow, then a good guess would be possible — but we are talking about the data web, the very soul of serendipity and unexpected discovery.

So we made a web service that will do faceted search on arbitrary RDF. If it does not get complete results within a timeout, it will return what it has counted so far, using Virtuoso's Anytime feature. Looking for subjects with some specific combination of properties is however a bit limited, so this will also do JOINs. Many features are one or two JOINs away; take geographical locations or social networks, for example.

Yet a faceted search should be point-and-click, and should not involve a full query construction. We put the compromise at starting with full text or property or class, then navigating down properties or classes, to arbitrary depth, tree-wise. At each step, one can see the matching instances or their classes or properties, all with counts, faceted-style.

This is good enough for queries like 'what do Harry Potter fans also like' or 'who are the authors of articles tagged semantic web and machine learning and published in 2008'. For complex grouping, sub-queries, arithmetic or such, one must write the actual query.

But one can begin with facets, and then continue refining the query by hand since the service also returns SPARQL text. We made a small web interface on top of the service with all logic server side. This proves that the web service is usable and that an interface with no AJAX, and no problems with browser interoperability or such, is possible and easy. Also, the problem of syncing between a user-agent-based store and a database is entirely gone.

If we are working with a known data structure, the user interface should choose the display by the data type and offer links to related reports. This is all easy to build as web pages or AJAX. We show how the generic interface is done in Virtuoso PL, and you can adapt that or rewrite it in PHP, Java, JavaScript, or anything else, to accommodate use-case specific navigation needs such as data format.

The web service takes an XML representation of the search, which is more restricted and easier to process by machine than the SPARQL syntax. The web service returns the results, the SPARQL query it generated, whether the results are complete or not, and some resource use statistics.

The source of the PL functions, Web Service and Virtuoso Server Page (HTML UI) will be available as part of Virtuoso 6.0 and higher. A Programmer's Guide will be available as part of the standard Virtuoso Documentation collection, including the Virtuoso Open Source Edition Website.

As is fitting for the season, I will editorialize a bit about what has gone before and what is to come.

Sir Tim said it at WWW08 in Beijing — linked data and the linked data web is the semantic web and the Web done right.

The grail of ad hoc analytics on infinite data has lost none of its appeal. We have seen fresh evidence of this in the realm of data warehousing products, as well as storage in general.

The benefits of a data model more abstract than the relational are being increasingly appreciated also outside the data web circles. Microsoft's Entity Frameworks technology is an example. Agility has been a buzzword for a long time. Everything should be offered in a service based business model and should interoperate and integrate with everything else — business needs first; schema last.

Not to forget that when money is tight, reuse of existing assets and paying on a usage basis are naturally emphasized. Information, as the asset it is, is none the less important, on the contrary. But even with information, value should be realized economically, which, among other things, entails not reinventing the wheel.

It is against this backdrop that this year will play out.

As concerns research, I will again quote Harry Halpin at ESWC 2008: "Men will fight in a war, and even lose a war, for what they believe just. And it may come to pass that later, even though the war were lost, the things then fought for will emerge under another name and establish themselves as the prevailing reality" [or words to this effect].

Something like the data web, and even the semantic web, will happen. Harry's question was whether this would be the descendant of what is today called semantic web research.

I heard in conversation about a project for making a very large metadata store. I also heard that the makers did not particularly insist on this being RDF-based, though.

Why should such a thing be RDF-based? If it is already accepted that there will be ad hoc schema and that queries ought to be able to view the data from all angles, not be limited by having indices one way and not another way, then why not RDF?

The justification of RDF is in reusing and linking-to data and terminology out there. Another justification is that by using an RDF store, one is spared a lot of work and tons of compromises which attend making an entity-attribute-value (EAV, i.e., triple) store on a generic RDBMS. The sem-web world has been there, trust me. We came out well because we put all inside the RDBMS, lowest level, which you can't do unless you own the RDBMS. Source access is not enough; you also need the knowledge.

Technicalities aside, the question is one of proprietary vs. standards-based. This is not only so with software components, where standards have consistently demonstrated benefits, but now also with the data. Zemanta and OpenCalais serving DBpedia URIs are examples. Even in entirely closed applications, there is benefit in reusing open vocabularies and identifiers: One does not need to create a secret language for writing a secret memo.

Where data is a carrier of value, its value is enhanced by it being easy to repurpose (i.e., standard vocabularies) and to discover (i.e., data set metadata). As on the web, so on the enterprise intranet. In this lies the strength of RDF as opposed to proprietary flexible database schemes. This is a qualitative distinction.

In hoc signo vinces.

In this light, we welcome the voiD (VOcabulary of Interlinked Data), which is the first promise of making federatable data discoverable. Now that there is a point of focus for these efforts, the needed expressivity will no doubt accrete around the voiD core.

For data as a service, we clearly see the value of open terminologies as prerequisites for service interchangeability, i.e., creating a marketplace. XML is for the transaction; RDF is for the discovery, query, and analytics. As with databases in general, first there was the transaction; then there was the query. Same here. For monetizing the query, there are models ranging from renting data sets and server capacity in the clouds to hosted services where one pays for processing past a certain quota. For the hosted case, we just removed a major barrier to offering unlimited query against unlimited data when we completed the Virtuoso Anytime feature. With this, the user gets what is found within a set time, which is already something, and in case of needing more, one can pay for the usage. Of course, we do not forget advertising. When data has explicit semantics, contextuality is better than with keywords.

For these visions to materialize on top of the linked data platform, linked data must join the world of data. This means messaging that is geared towards the database public. They know the problem, but the RDF proposition is still not well enough understood for it to connect.

For the relational IT world, we offer passage to the data web and its promise of integration through RDF mapping. We are also bringing out new Microsoft Entity Framework components. This goes in the direction of defining a unified database frontier with RDF and non-RDF entity models side by side.

For OpenLink Software, 2008 was about developing technology for scale, RDF as well as generic relational. We did show a tiny preview with the Billion Triples Challenge demo. Now we are set to come out with the real thing, featuring, among other things, faceted search at the billion triple scale. We started offering ready-to-go Virtuoso-hosted linked open data sets on Amazon EC2 in December. Now we continue doing this based on our next-generation server, as well as make Virtuoso 6 Cluster commercially available. Technical specifics are amply discussed on this blog. There are still some new technology things to be developed this year; first among these are strong SPARQL federation, and on-the-fly resizing of server clusters. On the research partnerships side, we have an EU grant for working with the OntoWiki project from the University of Leipzig, and we are partners in DERI's Líon project. These will provide platforms for further demonstrating the "web" in data web, as in web-scale smart databasing.

2009 will see change through scale. The things that exist will start interconnecting and there will be emergent value. Deployments will be larger and scale will be readily available through a services model or by installation at one's own facilities. We may see the start of Search becoming Find, like Kingsley says, meaning semantics of data guiding search. Entity extraction will multiply data volumes and bring parts of the data web to real time.

Exciting 2009 to all.

It is a long standing promise of mine to dispel the false impression that using Virtuoso to work with RDF is complicated.

The purpose of this presentation is to show a programmer how to put RDF into Virtuoso and how to query it. This is done programmatically, with no confusing user interfaces.

You should have a Virtuoso Open Source tree built and installed. We will look at the LUBM benchmark demo that comes with the package. All you need is a Unix shell. Running the shell under emacs (m-x shell) is the best. But the open source isql utility should have command line editing also. The emacs shell is however convenient for cutting and pasting things between shell and files.

To get started, cd into binsrc/tests/lubm.

To verify that this works, you can do

./test_server.sh virtuoso-t

This will test the server with the LUBM queries. This should report 45 tests passed. After this we will do the tests step-by-step.

Loading the Data

The file lubm-load.sql contains the commands for loading the LUBM single university qualification database.

The data files themselves are in lubm_8000, 15 files in RDFXML.

There is also a little ontology called inf.nt. This declares the subclass and subproperty relations used in the benchmark.

So now let's go through this procedure.

Start the server:

$ virtuoso-t -f &

This starts the server in foreground mode, and puts it in the background of the shell.

Now we connect to it with the isql utility.

$ isql 1111 dba dba 

This gives a SQL> prompt. The default username and password are both dba.

When a command is SQL, it is entered directly. If it is SPARQL, it is prefixed with the keyword sparql. This is how all the SQL clients work. Any SQL client, such as any ODBC or JDBC application, can use SPARQL if the SQL string starts with this keyword.

The lubm-load.sql file is quite self-explanatory. It begins with defining an SQL procedure that calls the RDF/XML load function, DB..RDF_LOAD_RDFXML, for each file in a directory.

Next it calls this function for the lubm_8000 directory under the server's working directory.

sparql 
   CLEAR GRAPH <lubm>;

sparql 
   CLEAR GRAPH <inf>;

load_lubm ( server_root() || '/lubm_8000/' );

Then it verifies that the right number of triples is found in the <lubm> graph.

sparql 
   SELECT COUNT(*) 
     FROM <lubm> 
    WHERE { ?x ?y ?z } ;

The echo commands below this are interpreted by the isql utility, and produce output to show whether the test was passed. They can be ignored for now.

Then it adds some implied subOrganizationOf triples. This is part of setting up the LUBM test database.

sparql 
   PREFIX  ub:  <http://www.lehigh.edu/~zhp2/2004/0401/univ-bench.owl#>
   INSERT 
      INTO GRAPH <lubm> 
      { ?x  ub:subOrganizationOf  ?z } 
   FROM <lubm> 
   WHERE { ?x  ub:subOrganizationOf  ?y  . 
           ?y  ub:subOrganizationOf  ?z  . 
         };

Then it loads the ontology file, inf.nt, using the Turtle load function, DB.DBA.TTLP. The arguments of the function are the text to load, the default namespace prefix, and the URI of the target graph.

DB.DBA.TTLP ( file_to_string ( 'inf.nt' ), 
              'http://www.lehigh.edu/~zhp2/2004/0401/univ-bench.owl', 
              'inf' 
            ) ;
sparql 
   SELECT COUNT(*) 
     FROM <inf> 
    WHERE { ?x ?y ?z } ;

Then we declare that the triples in the <inf> graph can be used for inference at run time. To enable this, a SPARQL query will declare that it uses the 'inft' rule set. Otherwise this has no effect.

rdfs_rule_set ('inft', 'inf');

This is just a log checkpoint to finalize the work and truncate the transaction log. The server would also eventually do this in its own time.

checkpoint;

Now we are ready for querying.

Querying the Data

The queries are given in 3 different versions: The first file, lubm.sql, has the queries with most inference open coded as UNIONs. The second file, lubm-inf.sql, has the inference performed at run time using the ontology information in the <inf> graph we just loaded. The last, lubm-phys.sql, relies on having the entailed triples physically present in the <lubm> graph. These entailed triples are inserted by the SPARUL commands in the lubm-cp.sql file.

If you wish to run all the commands in a SQL file, you can type load <filename>; (e.g., load lubm-cp.sql;) at the SQL> prompt. If you wish to try individual statements, you can paste them to the command line.

For example:

SQL> sparql 
   PREFIX ub: <http://www.lehigh.edu/~zhp2/2004/0401/univ-bench.owl#>
   SELECT * 
     FROM <lubm>
    WHERE { ?x  a                     ub:Publication                                                . 
            ?x  ub:publicationAuthor  <http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0> 
          };

VARCHAR
_______________________________________________________________________

http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication0
http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication1
http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication2
http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication3
http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication4
http://www.Department0.University0.edu/AssistantProfessor0/Publication5

6 Rows. -- 4 msec.

To stop the server, simply type shutdown; at the SQL> prompt.

If you wish to use a SPARQL protocol end point, just enable the HTTP listener. This is done by adding a stanza like —

[HTTPServer]
ServerPort    = 8421
ServerRoot    = .
ServerThreads = 2

— to the end of the virtuoso.ini file in the lubm directory. Then shutdown and restart (type shutdown; at the SQL> prompt and then virtuoso-t -f & at the shell prompt).

Now you can connect to the end point with a web browser. The URL is http://localhost:8421/sparql. Without parameters, this will show a human readable form. With parameters, this will execute SPARQL.

We have shown how to load and query RDF with Virtuoso using the most basic SQL tools. Next you can access RDF from, for example, PHP, using the PHP ODBC interface.

To see how to use Jena or Sesame with Virtuoso, look at Native RDF Storage Providers. To see how RDF data types are supported, see Extension datatype for RDF

To work with large volumes of data, you must add memory to the configuration file and use the row-autocommit mode, i.e., do log_enable (2); before the load command. Otherwise Virtuoso will do the entire load as a single transaction, and will run out of rollback space. See documentation for more.

The W3C's RDB-to-RDF mapping incubator group (RDB2RDF XG) met in Karlsruhe after ISWC 2008.

The meeting was about writing a charter for a working group that would define a standard for mapping relational databases to RDF, either for purposes of import into RDF stores or of query mapping from SPARQL to SQL. There was a lot of agreement and the meeting even finished ahead of the allotted time.

Whose Identifiers?

There was discussion concerning using the Entity Name Service from the Okkam project for assigning URIs to entities mapped from relational databases. This makes sense when talking about long-lived, legal entities, such as people or companies or geography. Of course, there are cases where this makes no sense; for example, a purchase order or maintenance call hardly needs an identifier registered with the ENS. The problem is, in practice, a CRM could mention customers that have an ENS registered ID (or even several such IDs) and others that have none. Of course, the CRM's reference cannot depend on any registration. Also, even when there is a stable URI for the entity, a CRM may need a key that specifies some administrative subdivision of the customer.

Also we note that an on-demand RDB-to-RDF mapping may have some trouble dealing with "same as" assertions. If names that are anything other than string forms of the keys in the system must be returned, there will have to be a lookup added to the RDB. This is an administrative issue. Certainly going over the network to ask for names of items returned by queries has a prohibitive cost. It would be good for ad hoc integration to use shared URIs when possible. The trouble of adding and maintaining lookups for these, however, makes this more expensive than just mapping to RDF and using literals for joining between independently maintained systems.

XML or RDF?

We talked about having a language for human consumption and another for discovery and machine processing of mappings. Would this latter be XML or RDF based? Describing every detail of syntax for a mapping as RDF is really tedious. Also such descriptions are very hard to query, just as OWL ontologies are. One solution is to have opaque strings embedded into RDF, just like XSLT has XPath in string form embedded into XML. Maybe it will end up in this way here also. Having a complete XML mapping of the parse tree for mappings, XQueryX-style, could be nice for automatic generation of mappings with XSLT from an XML view of the information schema. But then XSLT can also produce text, so an XML syntax that has every detail of a mapping language as distinct elements is not really necessary for this.

Another matter is then describing the RDF generated by the mapping in terms of RDFS or OWL. This would be a by-product of declaring the mapping. Most often, I would presume the target ontology to be given, though, reducing the need for this feature. But if RDF mapping is used for discovery of data, such a description of the exposed data is essential.

Interoperability

We agreed with Sören Auer that we could make Virtuoso's mapping language compatible with Triplify. Triplify is very simple, extraction only, no SPARQL, but does have the benefit of expressing everything in SQL. As it happens, I would be the last person to tell a web developer what language to program in. So if it is SQL, then let it stay SQL. Technically, a lot of the information the Virtuoso mapping expresses is contained in the Triplify SQL statements, but not all. Some extra declarations are needed still but can have reasonable defaults.

There are two ways of stating a mapping. Virtuoso starts with the triple and says which tables and columns will produce the triple. Triplify starts with the SQL statement and says what triples it produces. These are fairly equivalent. For the web developer, the latter is likely more self-evident, while the former may be more compact and have less repetition.

Virtuoso and Triplify alone would give us the two interoperable implementations required from a working group, supposing the language were annotations on top of SQL. This would be a guarantee of delivery, as we would be close enough to the result from the get go.

Related Web resources

• OpenLink Virtuoso: Open-Source Edition: Mapping SQL Data to RDF
• Virtuoso RDF Views — Getting Started Guide (PDF)

Here I will talk about some more technical questions that came up. This is mostly general; Virtuoso specific questions and answers are separate.

"How to Bootstrap? Where will the triples come from?"

There are already wrappers producing RDF from many applications. Since any structured or semi-structured data can be converted to RDF and often there is even a pre-existing terminology for the application domain, the availability of the data per se is not the concern.

The triples may come from any application or database, but they will not come from the end user directly. There was a good talk about photograph annotation in Vienna, describing many ways of deriving metadata for photos. The essential wisdom is annotating on the spot and wherever possible doing so automatically. The consumer is very unlikely to go annotate photos after the fact. Further, one can infer that photos made with the same camera around the same time are from the same location. There are other such heuristics. In this use case, the end user does not need to see triples. There is some benefit though in using commonly used geographical terminology for linking to other data sources.

"How will one develop applications?"

I'd say one will develop them much the same way as thus far. In PHP, for example. Whether one's query language is SPARQL or SQL does not make a large difference in how basic web UI is made.

A SPARQL end-point is no more an end-user item than a SQL command-line is.

A common mistake among techies is that they think the data structure and user experience can or ought to be of the same structure. The UI dialogs do not, for example, have to have a 1:1 correspondence with SQL tables.

The idea of generating UI from data, whether relational or data-web, is so seductive that generation upon generation of developers fall for it, repeatedly. Even I, at OpenLink, after supposedly having been around the block a couple of times made some experiments around the topic. What does make sense is putting a thin wrapper or HTML around the application, using XSLT and such for formatting. Since the model does allow for unforeseen properties of data, one can build a viewer for these alongside the regular forms. For this, Ajax technologies like OAT (the OpenLink AJAX Toolkit) will be good.

The UI ought not to completely hide the URIs of the data from the user. It should offer a drill down to faceted views of the triples for example. Remember when Xerox talked about graphical user interfaces in 1980? "Don't mode me in" was the slogan, as I recall.

Since then, we have vacillated between modal and non-modal interaction models. Repetitive workflows like order entry go best modally and are anyway being replaced by web services. Also workflows that are very infrequent benefit from modality; take personal network setup wizards, for example. But enabling the knowledge worker is a domain that by its nature must retain some respect for human intelligence and not kill this by denying access to the underlying data, including provenance and URIs. Face it: the world is not getting simpler. It is increasingly data dependent and when this is so, having semantics and flexibility of access for the data is important.

For a real-time task-oriented user interface like a fighter plane cockpit, one will not show URIs unless specifically requested. For planning fighter sorties though, there is some potential benefit in having all data such as friendly and hostile assets, geography, organizational structure, etc., as linked data. It makes for more flexible querying. Linked data does not per se mean open, so one can be joinable with open data through using the same identifiers even while maintaining arbitrary levels of security and compartmentalization.

For automating tasks that every time involve the same data and queries, RDF has no intrinsic superiority. Thus the user interfaces in places where RDF will have real edge must be more capable of ad hoc viewing and navigation than regular real-time or line of business user interfaces.

The OpenLink Data Explorer idea of a "data behind the web page" view goes in this direction. Read the web as before, then hit a switch to go to the data view. There are and will be separate clarifications and demos about this.

"What of the proliferation of standards? Does this not look too tangled, no clear identity? How would one know where to begin?"

When SWEO was beginning, there was an endlessly protracted discussion of the so-called layer cake. This acronym jungle is not good messaging. Just say linked, flexibly repurpose-able data, and rich vocabularies and structure. Just the right amount of structure for the application, less rigid and easier to change than relational.

Do not even mention the different serialization formats. Just say that it fits on top of the accepted web infrastructure — HTTP, URIs, and XML where desired.

It is misleading to say inference is a box at some specific place in the diagram. Inference of different types may or may not take place at diverse points, whether presentation or storage, on demand or as a preprocessing step. Since there is structure and semantics, inference is possible if desired.

"Can I make a social network application in RDF only, with no RDBMS?"

Yes, in principle, but what do you have in mind? The answer is very context dependent. The person posing the question had an E-learning system in mind, with things such as course catalogues, course material, etc. In such a case, RDF is a great match, especially since the user count will not be in the millions. No university has that many students and anyway they do not hang online browsing the course catalogue.

On the other hand, if I think of making a social network site with RDF as the exclusive data model, I see things that would be very inefficient. For example, keeping a count of logins or the last time of login would be by default several times less efficient than with a RDBMS.

If some application is really large scale and has a knowable workload profile, like any social network does, then some task-specific data structure is simply economical. This does not mean that the application language cannot be SPARQL but this means that the storage format must be tuned to favor some operations over others, relational style. This is a matter of cost more than of feasibility. Ten servers cost less than a hundred and have failures ten times less frequently.

In the near term we will see the birth of an application paradigm for the data web. The data will be open, exposed, first-class citizen; yet the user experience will not have to be in a 1:1 image of the data.

I was in Vienna for the Linked Data Practitioners gathering this week. Danny Ayers asked me if I would blog about the State of the Semantic Web or write the This Week's Semantic Web column. I don't have the time to cover all that may have happened during the past week but I will editorialize about the questions that again were raised in Vienna. How these things relate to Virtuoso will be covered separately. This is about the overarching questions of the times, not the finer points of geek craft.

Sören Auer asked me to say a few things about relational to RDF mapping. I will cite some highlights from this, as they pertain to the general scene. There was an "open hacking" session Wednesday night featuring lightning talks. I will use some of these too as a starting point.

The messaging?

The SWEO (Semantic Web Education and Outreach) interest group of the W3C spent some time looking for an elevator pitch for the Semantic Web. It became "Data Unleashed." Why not? Let's give this some context.

So, if we are holding a Semantic Web 101 session, where should we begin? I hazard to guess that we should not begin by writing a FOAF file in Turtle by hand, as this is one thing that is not likely to happen in the real world.

Of course, the social aspect of the Data Web is the most immediately engaging, so a demo might be to go make an account with myopenlink.net and see that after one has entered the data one normally enters for any social network, one has become a Data Web citizen. This means that one can be found, just like this, with a query against the set of data spaces hosted on the system. Then we just need a few pages that repurpose this data and relate it to other data. We show some samples of queries like this in our Billion Triples Challenge demo. We will make a webcast about this to make it all clearer.

Behold: The Data Web is about the world becoming a database; writing SPARQL queries or triples is incidental. You will write FOAF files by hand just as little as you now write SQL insert statements for filling in your account information on Myspace.

Every time there is a major shift in technology, this shift needs to be motivated by addressing a new class of problem. This means doing something that could not be done before. The last time this happened was when the relational database became the dominant IT technology. At that time, the questions involved putting the enterprise in the database and building a cluster of Line Of Business (LOB) applications around the database. The argument for the RDBMS was that you did not have to constrain the set of queries that might later be made, when designing the database. In other words, it was making things more ad hoc. This was opposed then on grounds of being less efficient than the hierarchical and network databases which the relational eventually replaced.

Today, the point of the Data Web is that you do not have to constrain what your data can join or integrate with, when you design your database. The counter-argument is that this is slow and geeky and not scalable. See the similarity?

A difference is that we are not specifically aiming at replacing the RDBMS. In fact, if you know exactly what you will query and have a well defined workload, a relational representation optimized for the workload will give you about 10x the performance of the equivalent RDF warehouse. OLTP remains a relational-only domain.

However, when we are talking about doing queries and analytics against the Web, or even against more than a handful of relational systems, the things which make RDBMS good become problematic.

What is the business value of this?

The most reliable of human drives is the drive to make oneself known. This drives all, from any social scene to business communications to politics. Today, when you want to proclaim you exist, you do so first on the Web. The Web did not become the prevalent media because business loved it for its own sake, it became prevalent because business could not afford not to assert their presence there. If anything, the Web eroded the communications dominance of a lot of players, which was not welcome but still had to be dealt with, by embracing the Web.

Today, in a world driven by data, the Data Web will be catalyzed by similar factors: If your data is not there, you will not figure in query results. Search engines will play some role there but also many social applications will have reports that are driven by published data. Also consider any e-commerce, any marketplace, and so forth. The Data Portability movement is a case in point: Users want to own their own content; silo operators want to capitalize on holding it. Right now, we see these things in silos; the Data Web will create bridges between these, and what is now in silo data centers will be increasingly available on an ad hoc basis with Open Data.

Again, we see a movement from the specialized to the generic: What LinkedIn does in its data center can be done with ad hoc queries with linked open data. Of course, LinkedIn does these things somewhat more efficiently because their system is built just for this task, but the linked data approach has the built-in readiness to join with everything else at almost no cost, without making a new data warehouse for each new business question.

We could call this the sociological aspect of the thing. Getting to more concrete business, we see an economy that, we could say, without being alarmists, is confronted with some issues. Well, generally when times are bad, this results in consolidation of property and power. Businesses fail and get split up and sold off in pieces, government adds controls and regulations and so forth. This means ad hoc data integration, as control without data is just pretense. If times are lean, this also means that there is little readiness to do wholesale replacement of systems, which will take years before producing anything. So we must play with what there is and make it deliver, in ways and conditions that were not necessarily anticipated. The agility of the Data Web, if correctly understood, can be of great benefit there, especially on the reporting and business intelligence side. Specifically mapping line-of-business systems into RDF on the fly will help with integration, making the specialized warehouse the slower and more expensive alternative. But this too is needed at times.

But for the RDF community to be taken seriously there, the messaging must be geared in this direction. Writing FOAF files by hand is not where you begin the pitch. Well, what is more natural then having a global, queriable information space, when you have a global information driven economy?

The Data Web is about making this happen. First with doing this in published generally available data; next with the enterprises having their private data for their own use but still linking toward the outside, even though private data stays private: You can still use standard terms and taxonomies, where they apply, when talking of proprietary information.

But let's get back to more specific issues

At the lightning talks in Vienna, one participant said, "Man's enemy is not the lion that eats men, it's his own brother. Semantic Web's enemy is the XML Web services stack that ate its lunch." There is some truth to the first part. The second part deserves some comment. The Web services stack is about transactions. When you have a fixed, often repeating task, it is a natural thing to make this a Web service. Even though SOA is not really prevalent in enterprise IT, it has value in things like managing supply-chain logistics with partners, etc. Lots of standard messages with unambiguous meaning. To make a parallel with the database world: first there was OLTP; then there was business intelligence. Of course, you must first have the transactions, to have something to analyze.

SOA is for the transactions; the Data Web is for integration, analysis, and discovery. It is the ad hoc component of the real time enterprise, if you will. It is not a competitor against a transaction oriented SOA. In fact, RDF has no special genius for transactions. Another mistake that often gets made is stretching things beyond their natural niche. Doing transactions in RDF is this sort of over-stretching without real benefit.

"I made an ontology and it really did solve a problem. How do I convince the enterprise people, the MBA who says it's too complex, the developer who says it is not what he's used to, and so on?"

This is an education question. One of the findings of SWEO's enterprise survey was that there was awareness that difficult problems existed. There were and are corporate ontologies and taxonomies, diversely implemented. Some of these needs are recognized. RDF based technologies offer to make these more open standards based. open standards have proven economical in the past. What we also hear is that major enterprises do not even know what their information and human resources assets are: Experts can't be found even when they are in the next department, or reports and analysis gets buried in wikis, spreadsheets, and emails.

Just as when SQL took off, we need vendors to do workshops on getting started with a technology. The affair in Vienna was a step in this direction. Another type of event specially focusing on vertical problems and their Data Web solutions is a next step. For example, one could do a workshop on integrating supply chain information with Data Web technologies. Or one on making enterprise knowledge bases from HR, CRM, office automation, wikis, etc. The good thing is that all these things are additions to, not replacements of, the existing mission-critical infrastructure. And better use of what you already have ought to be the theme of the day.