4 ms·

I work on TypeDB (https://vaticle.com/typedb https://vaticle.com/typedb), and it sits somewhere at this intersection. The exposed query language has elements of

I work on TypeDB (https://vaticle.com/typedb https://vaticle.com/typedb), and it sits somewhere at this intersection. The exposed query language has elements of both logic programming constructs and graph-like structures. Both amount to a kind of "constraint" programming.

rapnie 4y ago
A quick peek shows it seems along similar lines as TerminusDB sorta kinda, but they have WOQL [0]. At this time I start to worry again about all the different kinds and flavours of query languages that are emerging. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerminusDB#Query_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerminusDB#Query_language
- convolvatron 4y ago
  why would you worry? this space has been occupied by the default for so long, its refreshing to see people experiment with what might be possible.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    Agree, only concern is that whatever emerges here has conceptual clarity and doesn't get bastardized by people who haven't studied the foundations of the relational model. I have this fear because there's a history of that with novel query languages and DB platforms tossing in network/hierarchical/"document"/object-oriented features, and creating a dog's breakfast which loses the compositional/expressive power of the relational algebra. Think MongoDB or Redis. Conceptually a big mess. RDF itself has a history of this as well. Appeals to novelty. Or even Google's F1, which smashes hierarchical tree-structured protobufs into a SQL DB, and so has really weird behaviour on joins and projections. Well, whatever, you know my opinions on this stuff, I think :-) At this point I'd settle (or ask for) for a network available tuplestore which just receives relational-algebraic operators from a client, and optimizes/executes, and returns pure tuples, and the client-side could formulate whatever query language (or API) it wanted on top of that. I started playing with building something like that between the two jobs, but never got far.
felixyz 4y ago
I really like TypeDB! Haven't been able to use it for anything serious yet, but have a couple of project brewing where it might fit :)

rapnie 4y ago

A quick peek shows it seems along similar lines as TerminusDB sorta kinda, but they have WOQL [0]. At this time I start to worry again about all the different kinds and flavours of query languages that are emerging. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerminusDB#Query_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerminusDB#Query_language

convolvatron 4y ago
why would you worry? this space has been occupied by the default for so long, its refreshing to see people experiment with what might be possible.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Agree, only concern is that whatever emerges here has conceptual clarity and doesn't get bastardized by people who haven't studied the foundations of the relational model. I have this fear because there's a history of that with novel query languages and DB platforms tossing in network/hierarchical/"document"/object-oriented features, and creating a dog's breakfast which loses the compositional/expressive power of the relational algebra. Think MongoDB or Redis. Conceptually a big mess. RDF itself has a history of this as well. Appeals to novelty. Or even Google's F1, which smashes hierarchical tree-structured protobufs into a SQL DB, and so has really weird behaviour on joins and projections. Well, whatever, you know my opinions on this stuff, I think :-) At this point I'd settle (or ask for) for a network available tuplestore which just receives relational-algebraic operators from a client, and optimizes/executes, and returns pure tuples, and the client-side could formulate whatever query language (or API) it wanted on top of that. I started playing with building something like that between the two jobs, but never got far.

felixyz 4y ago

I really like TypeDB! Haven't been able to use it for anything serious yet, but have a couple of project brewing where it might fit :)