Nigel,
Sounds good, although I'd rather have named parameters as well, otherwise
parameter indexes will easily get unwieldy.
I would like to propose to use the same syntax cypher uses for parameters
(that's also the syntax used by the batch-inserter)
aka. {0} and {name}
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son2)
> {1}-[:FAMILY]->(dad)
Might be a bit confusing wrt the json, But I want consistency :)
Interesting part would also be when those parameters not only refer to a single
node or relationship but an collections of those.
So one could take the output of a traversal or cypher query (with aliases or
position) and pass them into the geoff reader which then connects or updates
all of them appropriately.
Allowing us to do mass-updates or structural connections in one go.
(dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->{children}
{children} {"lastname" : "Small"}
Btw. that reminds me of a version of the geoff syntax that might compact many
files:
> (dad) {"name":"Nigel"}
> (son1) {"name":"Joshua"}
> (son2) {"name":"Stephen"}
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son1,son2)
> (son1,son2) {"lastname","Small")
Michael
Am 12.11.2011 um 00:07 schrieb Nigel Small:
> Hi Peter
>
> Imagine we are trying to inject a simple graph, such as the following:
>
> (dad) {"name":"Nigel"}
> (son1) {"name":"Joshua"}
> (son2) {"name":"Stephen"}
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son1)
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son2)
>
> Currently, this would be loaded into graphspace without any attachment to
> existing structures; a join would have to be made *after* the load.
>
> If we instead consider parameterising the load, e.g. loadIntoNeo4j(reader,
> graphDB, someNode, otherNode, ...), we can reference the supplied nodes
> from within the GEOFF data. I think that ($n) notation would be quite
> useful here as it is already familiar from bash etc. This might therefore
> turn the above subgraph into:
> *
>
> (dad) {"name":"Nigel"}
> (son1) {"name":"Joshua"}
> (son2) {"name":"Stephen"}
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son1)
> (dad)-[:FATHER_OF]->(son2)
> ($1)-[:FAMILY]->(dad)
>
> ...such that ($1) refers to the first supplied parameter, ($2) would be the
> second and so on. ($0) could possibly refer to the reference node of the
> destination graph, by definition.
>
> Hope this makes sense! What do you reckon?
>
> *
> *Nigel Small*
> Phone: +44 7814 638 246
> Blog: http://nigelsmall.name/
> GTalk: [email protected]
> MSN: [email protected]
> Skype: technige
> Twitter: @technige <https://twitter.com/#!/technige>
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/nigelsmall
>
>
>
> On 11 November 2011 22:10, Peter Neubauer
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Nigel,
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Nigel Small <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> We could possibly create some form of syntax which would designate a
>> "this"
>>> node, e.g. (@). This could allow a file to reference it's external
>> context,
>>> in this case the node to which we are submitting the subgraph.
>> What would this look like?
>>
>> /peter
>> _______________________________________________
>> Neo4j mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Neo4j mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
