On Apr 19, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Bob Dionne wrote: >> Mike, >> >> I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Damien presented the UnQL stuff >> to us, some time ago before he left the CouchDB project, and I thought then >> it was overly ambitious. >> >> I agree that SQL is awesome and hard to get away from after thinking in >> terms of relations for years. I'd love to see an alternative to SQL that was >> a better fit for document stores, that takes into account that document are >> sorts of like objects with attributes. There was considerable work done in >> this area years ago by folks working in functional dbs. >> > Umm.... CQL (Contextual Query Language, formerly known as Common Query > Language). Developed by the library community for querying metadata. > > SRU (Search/Retrieve via URL) embeds CQL in a RESTful API. Sort of > OpenSearch on steroids. Some mature implementations floating around. > > Working example of a search string: > http://alcme.oclc.org/srw/search/SiteSearchDocumentation?query=dc.title= > pears&version=1.1&maximumRecords=10 > <http://alcme.oclc.org/srw/search/SiteSearchDocumentation?query=dc.title=%20pears&version=1.1&maximumRecords=10> > > Now an SRU interface to CouchDB would be interesting. > > (Amazing how people always want to re-invent things rather than do a little > research.)
It is amazing, there's also the original UnQL by Peter Buneman and his students at Penn (Hasan Ait-KAci, et. al.), FQL, etc.. What I was referring to in wondering about alternatives was a revisiting of the foundations, research in the capital R sense, rather than just googling about for artifacts, though clearly literature surveys are also important. > > Miles Fidelman > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra > >
