Re: [Bigdata-developers] Breakdown of mutation count statistic or way of aborting an update

[Bryan T. <br...@sy...>]

Jeremy,

I am not clear what your timeframe is for this.  However, if there is
enough lead time, I would like to coordinate this with Metaphact's interest
in constraint languages.

Bryan

----
Bryan Thompson
Chief Scientist & Founder
SYSTAP, LLC
4501 Tower Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
br...@sy...
http://bigdata.com
http://mapgraph.io

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This email and its contents and attachments are
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and are confidential or
proprietary to SYSTAP. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure,
dissemination or copying of this email or its contents or attachments is
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify
the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of the email
and its contents and attachments.

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Jeremy J Carroll <jj...@sy...> wrote:

>
> On Feb 10, 2015, at 3:33 PM, Bryan Thompson <br...@sy...> wrote:
>
> In general, an ASK is a very heavy option.  It sounds relevant in your
> case.  Many consistency check options can be much lighter which is
> more where my thoughts have been - triggers and enabling object
> oriented extensions of the database (in terms of schema validation and
> constraints, object oriented data interchange and query, and
> server-side object behaviors).
>
>
> The work on RDF Shapes being done in W3C may be relevant to understanding
> what consistency checks may be useful for implementing shape validation.
> The ABORT mechanism seemed to me to be a small step, fairly easy to
> implement, and easy to understand what it does. Triggers and OO extensions
> sounds like more of a learning curve.
>
> I guess also attractive in our case for the ASK is that we already have
> lots of code that dynamically constructs SPARQL and this would just be more
> of the same.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
>
>