SPARQL isn't quite the same thing. I think it's worth learning about MQL to understand what MQL is trying to accomplish. MQL puts an object-like view on top of a graph database - it probably seems complex because it's totally different than anything the W3C has released.
SPARQL is very powerful - it gives you a graph-oriented query language, so you have the benefits and drawbacks of the direct-mapping between the query language and the graph representation. You have to understand everything about the data you're requesting, but you know exactly what you'll get back, node-for-node and link-for-link.
MQL admittedly hides this stuff from you if you don't ask for it. My personal (and obviously biased) opinion is that that MQL is simple for simple queries, and complex for complex queries, and SPARQL is simply complex for all queries.
Sign in with 
OpenID
I think the query language is... complex. I think SPARQL would have been easier, even if it was encoded in something JSONny.
SPARQL isn't quite the same thing. I think it's worth learning about MQL to understand what MQL is trying to accomplish. MQL puts an object-like view on top of a graph database - it probably seems complex because it's totally different than anything the W3C has released.
SPARQL is very powerful - it gives you a graph-oriented query language, so you have the benefits and drawbacks of the direct-mapping between the query language and the graph representation. You have to understand everything about the data you're requesting, but you know exactly what you'll get back, node-for-node and link-for-link.
MQL admittedly hides this stuff from you if you don't ask for it. My personal (and obviously biased) opinion is that that MQL is simple for simple queries, and complex for complex queries, and SPARQL is simply complex for all queries.
Give MQL a try though! You might be surprised...
Alec - 4th September 2007 04:47 - #