Re: [VOTE] Apache AGE 0.7.0 Release

I feel that we should ask this question: are we judging copyright claims at high level or low levels of programming. Or rather: compiled or non-compiled code. Take: src/include/parser/cypher_expr.h, this is a file in incubator-Apache AGE. The name of the function call declared in that function:

Re: [DISCUSS and VOTE] AGEViewer dockerhub presence

Hi all, please vote to utilise dockerhub as a distribution method for Viewer as it is for AGE @Felix The direction from Infra team on the incubator AGE dockerhub request was... "Neither of these threads expressly confirm the project's desire to adopt DockerHub distribution, they are just

Re: [DISCUSS] AGEViewer dockerhub presence

I guess I’m linking to myself. I see infra asks for mentor, but as a community you should just have a vote. You can explicitly ask a mentor to vote too https://lists.apache.org/thread/oxzo04gxxkqvmtw7rmzkw8t2d8cf3nwo From: Felix Cheung Sent: Monday, January 24,

Re: [DISCUSS] AGEViewer dockerhub presence

Shouldn’t this be a vote? Please see https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/INFRA-22356 From: Joe Fagan Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:34:36 AM To: dev@age.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] AGEViewer dockerhub presence Dear mentors, We

Re: [VOTE] Apache AGE 0.7.0 Release

Thanks, then +1 based on my checking -- Juan Pan(Trista), Twitter: @tristaZero On 01/24/2022 02:03，Josh Innis wrote： There is some code that the AGE team wrote that is in those files, but no third party code is in

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Personally I think long term: Alex brings up a good point with the GUC configuration. Let the database owner decide the behavior. On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 6:15 PM Josh Innis wrote: > A directed graph and undirected graph both excel at modeling different > problems and are used by an overlapping

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

A directed graph and undirected graph both excel at modeling different problems and are used by an overlapping (though neither is a subset of the other) set of algorithms. AGE, Neo4J and cypher are all directed models that have some undirected features, which are inherently designed to be

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Sounds reasonable  Officially the docs say undefined, so please don’t rely upon it. But the defacto standard is consistent. The model is a directed graph, but when direction does not matter, CYPHER allows to ignore it. Are there some cases where adding support for true undirected edges

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

I have spent some time on the Neo4J console. I was running this set of commands: 1. MERGE ({side: 'left'})-[:edge]-({side:'right'}) 2. MATCH (l{side: 'left'})-[:edge]->(r{side:'right'}) RETURN l, r 3. MATCH (l{side: 'left'})<-[:edge]-(r{side:'right'}) RETURN l, r 4. MATCH (n) DETACH DELETE n No

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

I'm not sure of the consequences of storing both directions (like multiple edges returned from a match when there is really only one) for just one non-directional edge. Although, a non-directional edge is technically, bidirectional. The ideal way would be to support a non-directional edge

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Support in what way, have two edges, one for each direction or what Jasper and Nick are suggesting? On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 5:35 PM John Gemignani wrote: > I don't think having a default direction applied for a non-directed edge is > a good idea; there wouldn't be a way to tell these edges

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

I don't think having a default direction applied for a non-directed edge is a good idea; there wouldn't be a way to tell these edges apart later on. I think it might be a better idea to just support non-directed edges. John On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 3:35 PM Jasper Blues wrote: > Hi All, > > The

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Or to be fair: The spec itself _is_ ambiguous, however we should also consider and adhere defacto standards, I think, unless there’s a very strong reason not to. > On Jan 25, 2022, at 9:12 AM, Nicholas Sorrell wrote: > > I agree with Jasper's response. My preferences would also be the same

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

I agree with Jasper's response. My preferences would also be the same order: Try to keep it arbitrary/random, else pick a direction. Option 1 of rejecting the statement deviates from the spec and creates interoperability issues. From: Jasper Blues Sent:

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Hi All, The quirk behind that CYPHER comes from Neo4j’s property graph model: All edges have a direction When direction is not relevant it can be ignored. This works will for read queries, for merge it is slightly quirky, however I believe the specification is reasonable: If we MERGE

Re: [DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Option1 +1 In terms of OpenCypher's grammar compatibility, Option2 seems to be a very good choice. However, in the case of a joint project, not a solo project, this choice may cause confusion. So, in a different opinion, how about introducing GUC, Option1 as the default and choose between

[DISCUSS] Ambiguity in the MERGE Specification

Hi All, The openCypher specification for MERGE has an ambiguous specification on the subject of undirected relationships. Per the document on page 119 in the section titled "Merge on an undirected relationship": MERGE can also be used with an undirected relationship. When it needs to create a

Re: [VOTE] Apache AGE 0.7.0 Release

vongosling - "Do we have a plan to transfer all pg files to an external directory?" Could you please clarify what *you *mean by an external directory? Is it another directory in our repository or not in our repository at all? Additionally, is this a requirement? Per Justin, or at least from my

[DISCUSS] AGEViewer dockerhub presence

Dear mentors, We would like to have an image for Incubator AGE Viewer at hub.docker.com. Is it possible to approve the creation of https://hub.docker.com/r/apache/age-viewer We will not require push access to this and can instead use automated build

Re: Apache AGE (Incubating) SGA/IP Clearance

Hello Craig, Thank you very much. We discussed this with our mentor and we were able to fix the issues. Best regards, Eya On 2022/01/20 06:08:19 Craig Russell wrote: > Hi Eya, > > Please discuss the status of the project with your mentors. The Secretary's > role is limited to recording