SQL vs SPARQL: Two Titans of Data Querying 💻 When it comes to extracting valuable insights from data, SQL and SPARQL are often compared. But did you know these two query languages are designed for entirely different types of data and use cases? 🤔 Here’s a quick breakdown: 🔹 SQL • Designed for relational databases (think tables, rows, and columns). • Relationships are predefined, which makes it ideal for structured data. • Great for transactional systems and applications that rely on clear schemas. 🔸 SPARQL • Built for graph-based data models like RDF, where relationships are flexible and dynamic. • Perfect for querying knowledge graphs and semantic data, enabling machines to understand and infer new knowledge. • Handles linked data across distributed datasets, giving you a web of interconnected information. 🔑 Key Differences - SQL focuses on what data is stored, while SPARQL shines in exploring how data is interconnected. - Need to find relationships between entities (e.g., "All researchers who have worked on AI and live in Europe")? SPARQL is your go-to. - Want fast, structured queries on a well-defined database? SQL will handle it with ease. 🌐 As the world moves towards more dynamic and unstructured data, SPARQL is becoming a critical tool in fields like AI, data integration and the Semantic Web. #SPARQL #SQL #DataQuerying #KnowledgeGraphs #SemanticWeb #TechInnovation #DataScience
For those interested, I've been collecting emerging "graph" tagged technologies in this article, which could provide you some other perspectives at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emerging-landscape-distributed-knowledge-ontology-semantic-figay/
Stilyana Kaleeva, this is a great intro for people who don't know graphs and #sparql! The visual is fantastic! Where does it come from? I couldn't resist to provide simple illustration of something you can do in SPARQL and you cannot in SQL. Think of find the relationships between two nodes/entities: select ?r where { :entity1 ?r :entity2 . } You can also find entities that are linked to a given one over a chain of edges of a specific type: select ?related where { :entity1 :p+ ?related . }
FYI - timbr.ai's technology (SQL ontologies that fully comply with the Semantic Web standards) enables flexible and dynamic relationships in the data model, and SQL queries that shine in exploring how data is interconnected. Did anyone say graph traversals in SQL? 😎
And in many cases hybrid graphs, composed of graph databases and a graph virtualization over SQL, enable a smooth transition and solid integration.
I'd argue that the only differences between SQL and SPARQL are a few syntactic constructs. What is really different is the underlying way of structuring data. - With a relational database, data are put in predefined structures (the relations); here data and structures are two different things. - With an "RDF database", data are the relations themselves; there is no difference between data and structures. In the end, there's rarely a choice between SQL and SPARQL because your database determines the language you have to use. If you have to choose between "RDF database" and relational database, then the differences between SQL and SPARQL, among other things, should be considered.
I like the visual. Let's note that we have here two families of technologies. One is about relational databases, with SQL, which is being extended with GQL for more hybrid databases, combining tuples and graphs querying. In the other side, you have the web of linked data, with distributed RDF resources with IRIs, RDF, SparQL and if considering semantic web, OWL, DL queries and reasonning engines, based on DL or SWRL. RDF has also been evolving with Data Shaping (SHACL) and RDF*, in order to also aligned with LPG (Label Property Graphs, another NO SQL database technologies which is not based on Web Resources)....
"As the world moves towards more dynamic and unstructured data, SPARQL is becoming a critical tool in fields like AI, data integration and the Semantic Web." Stilyana Kaleeva what makes you believe that "structured data" is actually structured? I would argue that both unstructured and what we call structured are not structured at all.
Master Classes in SPARQL and much more knowledge graph related at Connected Data London, https://2024.connected-data.london/topics/masterclasses/
This is such a well-articulated breakdown, Stilyana Kaleeva! Your deep understanding of the nuances between SQL and SPARQL truly shines through. It's inspiring to see how your passion for semantic technologies translates into such clear and insightful explanations.
Head of Graph Data and Analytics, Data Governance Council member at Wolters Kluwer
2wIt's important to highlight that your narrative would be lacking without a discussion of the ISO/IEC 39075:2024 standard pertaining to the Graph Query Language (GQL). GQL is designed to be a more business-oriented query language, specifically tailored for working with connected data represented as Property Graphs. This makes it particularly suitable for scenarios where relationships between data entities are paramount. In contrast, SPARQL is predominantly focused on querying RDF (Resource Description Framework) data, which is defined by the RDF 1.1 standard. While SPARQL excels in accessing and manipulating data structured in the RDF format, GQL provides a more intuitive and flexible approach for users dealing with graph-structured data, making it a valuable tool for modern data management and analytics.