Difference between revisions of "Snapquery Metaquery Experiment"
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
When we complete the migration to SPARQL/RDF, these 15 meta queries will continue functioning without modification - the ultimate proof that query abstraction isolates applications from infrastructure evolution. | When we complete the migration to SPARQL/RDF, these 15 meta queries will continue functioning without modification - the ultimate proof that query abstraction isolates applications from infrastructure evolution. | ||
= GPT-5 = | = GPT-5 = | ||
| − | = Meta Queries (WF 2025-05-06): Dogfooding and Future-Proofing = | + | == Meta Queries (WF 2025-05-06): Dogfooding and Future-Proofing == |
We “eat our own dog food” by managing operational meta queries with the very same query-set tool, registry, and pipelines used for end-user queries. We started with agile JSON/YAML declarations and a relational backend, while intentionally defining a stable query contract that can be lifted to a full SPARQL/RDF stack without changing how users or dashboards interact with results. | We “eat our own dog food” by managing operational meta queries with the very same query-set tool, registry, and pipelines used for end-user queries. We started with agile JSON/YAML declarations and a relational backend, while intentionally defining a stable query contract that can be lifted to a full SPARQL/RDF stack without changing how users or dashboards interact with results. | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
* Purpose only: the table intentionally lists purposes, not code, to document intent and contract without disclosing implementation details. | * Purpose only: the table intentionally lists purposes, not code, to document intent and contract without disclosing implementation details. | ||
| − | == Meta Query Catalog (purpose-only) == | + | === Meta Query Catalog (purpose-only) === |
{| class="wikitable sortable" | {| class="wikitable sortable" | ||
! Name !! Purpose | ! Name !! Purpose | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | == Contract and Migration == | + | === Contract and Migration === |
* Contract stability: each meta query’s output schema is treated as a contract that remains stable across backends. | * Contract stability: each meta query’s output schema is treated as a contract that remains stable across backends. | ||
* SPARQL/RDF lift: contracts are mapped 1:1 to SPARQL/RDF shapes using the SIB-aligned conversion (Jeven Bollemans issue #59). | * SPARQL/RDF lift: contracts are mapped 1:1 to SPARQL/RDF shapes using the SIB-aligned conversion (Jeven Bollemans issue #59). | ||
Revision as of 10:09, 4 December 2025
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Meta Queries: Eating Our Own Dog Food
Generation Prompt
Create a MediaWiki table and section for the meta queries describing our "eating our own dog food" approach. Context: We have 15 meta queries that analyze snapquery's own query execution data. Currently these use SQL on JSON/YAML data for development agility. The key point: the same query names and contracts will work when we migrate to SPARQL/RDF format (as proposed by SIB project via Jerven Bolleman's issue #59). This proves our technology-agnostic approach - snapquery will use its own query-set tool to convert from current JSON/YAML to SPARQL/RDF without breaking client code. Input: YAML file with meta queries (query_count, query_success, query_failures_by_category, etc.) Output needed: - MediaWiki section explaining the self-hosting validation concept - Table listing query names and purposes (NOT the SQL code) - Explain future migration path to SPARQL/RDF
Overview
Snapquery demonstrates its core principle of technology-agnostic query management by applying it to itself - a practice known as "eating your own dog food." We maintain 15 meta queries that analyze snapquery's own query execution data, currently implemented using SQL queries over JSON/YAML storage for development agility.
The crucial validation: these same named queries with identical contracts will seamlessly migrate to SPARQL queries over RDF data when we transition snapquery's internal storage to a knowledge graph. We will use snapquery's own query-set tool to perform this migration, converting the current JSON/YAML format to SPARQL/RDF following the format proposed by the SIB project via Jerven Bolleman's issue #59.
This self-hosting approach proves that:
- Query contracts remain stable across technology changes
- Client code doesn't break when backend storage evolves
- The abstraction layer successfully isolates queries from execution technology
- Snapquery can manage its own infrastructure evolution
Meta Query Inventory
| Query Name | Purpose |
|---|---|
query_count |
Count total number of named queries in the system |
query_success |
Analyze successful query executions grouped by endpoint |
query_failures_by_category |
Break down query failures by error category, domain, and namespace |
query_failures_by_category_grouped |
Aggregate failure patterns showing which error categories affect which domains and namespaces |
query_failures_by_category_grouped_counted |
Advanced failure analysis with ranked counts across domains, namespaces, and endpoints per error category |
query_failures_by_database_count |
Count query failures grouped by underlying database technology |
query_success_by_namespace |
Analyze success counts organized by namespace and endpoint |
query_namespace_endpoint_matrix_with_distinct |
Comprehensive matrix showing total, successful, and failed query counts for each namespace-endpoint combination |
query_stats |
Calculate execution statistics including duration and result set sizes per query |
params_stats |
Analyze distribution of parameter usage patterns across queries |
query_details_stats |
Compute overall statistics on query complexity (parameter counts, line counts, sizes) |
domain_namespace_stats |
Count queries grouped by domain and namespace |
all_endpoints |
List all registered endpoints with metadata |
error_histogram |
Generate frequency distribution of errors per query to identify most problematic queries |
scholia_jinja_for_loops |
Analyze Jinja template usage patterns in Scholia queries |
Migration Path
The meta queries currently execute as SQL queries on snapquery's JSON/YAML data model. When we migrate to RDF storage with full SPARQL endpoint capabilities:
- The query names remain identical (
query_count,query_failures_by_category_grouped_counted, etc.) - The query contracts (inputs/outputs) remain unchanged
- The implementation evolves from SQL to SPARQL
- Client code using these queries requires zero modifications
- The format conversion follows SIB project specifications (Jerven Bolleman's issue #59)
For example, the query_failures_by_category_grouped_counted meta query currently uses SQL window functions and aggregations. After migration, it will use equivalent SPARQL aggregation patterns and GROUP_CONCAT operations - but applications calling this named query won't notice the difference.
Self-Hosting Validation
This approach validates snapquery's architecture in the most practical way possible: we build snapquery using the same principles we advocate for SPARQL query management. By starting with SQL/JSON/YAML for rapid iteration while maintaining the architectural vision for full RDF/SPARQL support, we ensure that:
- Our technology-agnostic abstraction layer actually works
- Migration paths are real, not theoretical
- The query-set tool can handle complex transformations
- "Query rot" mitigation strategies apply across different backend technologies
When we complete the migration to SPARQL/RDF, these 15 meta queries will continue functioning without modification - the ultimate proof that query abstraction isolates applications from infrastructure evolution.
GPT-5
Meta Queries (WF 2025-05-06): Dogfooding and Future-Proofing
We “eat our own dog food” by managing operational meta queries with the very same query-set tool, registry, and pipelines used for end-user queries. We started with agile JSON/YAML declarations and a relational backend, while intentionally defining a stable query contract that can be lifted to a full SPARQL/RDF stack without changing how users or dashboards interact with results.
Key points:
- Same contract, multiple backends: the named queries below expose stable result shapes that will be preserved when we enable a SPARQL endpoint and RDF publishing.
- Future-proof via SIB format: our query-set tool converts the current JSON/YAML inputs to SPARQL/RDF in the format proposed by the SIB project (via Jeven Bollemans issue #59), so the exact same query set can target RDF graphs.
- One pipeline for all: declarations, scheduling, execution, and monitoring are unified; meta queries ride the same CI, caching, and reporting paths as user-facing queries.
- Purpose only: the table intentionally lists purposes, not code, to document intent and contract without disclosing implementation details.
Meta Query Catalog (purpose-only)
| Name | Purpose |
|---|---|
| query_count | Total number of registered named queries. |
| query_success | Count of successful executions per endpoint. |
| query_failures_by_category | Failures grouped by domain, namespace, and error category. |
| query_failures_by_category_grouped | Aggregated failures per error category with grouped domains and namespaces. |
| query_failures_by_category_grouped_counted | Failure rollups per category with per-domain/namespace/endpoint tallies. |
| query_failures_by_database_count | Failure counts grouped by backend database type. |
| query_success_by_namespace | Successful runs per namespace and endpoint. |
| query_namespace_endpoint_matrix_with_distinct | Matrix of distinct successful/failed queries per domain–namespace–endpoint, including totals and sums. |
| all_queries | Inventory of all named queries for introspection and cataloging. |
| error_histogram | Per-query error frequency to identify hotspots. |
| query_stats | Per-query execution summaries (durations and records) for performance tracking. |
| params_stats | Frequency of parameter signatures to understand usage patterns. |
| query_details_stats | Distribution of query complexity metrics (parameters, lines, size). |
| domain_namespace_stats | Query counts per domain and namespace (filterable). |
| all_endpoints | Catalog of available endpoints and their characteristics. |
| scholia_jinja_for_loops | Analysis of template for-loop usage patterns in query text. |
Contract and Migration
- Contract stability: each meta query’s output schema is treated as a contract that remains stable across backends.
- SPARQL/RDF lift: contracts are mapped 1:1 to SPARQL/RDF shapes using the SIB-aligned conversion (Jeven Bollemans issue #59).
- Seamless switch: dashboards and exports consume the contract, not the implementation, enabling a backend switch without user-facing changes.
Prompt used to generate this section
create a latex table and section for the meta queries and explain how we eat our own dog food