CODEWITHSUNDEEP
sparqlrdftriplestoregraphdb
Constantin1337
Constantin1337

Reputation: 23

Ascending order of results in sparql by using nonnegative integers that come as strings

I have more than 2000 resources in my triple store (GraphDB) that I would like to sort in ascending order, based on their IRI, whereas the IRI looks like:

http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#3
...
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2345

In my graph, all abovementioned IRIs are connected to one resource by "DE6:complex_Data_Type_has_Member". In order to get all the abovementioned IRIs I do the following:

PREFIX DE6: <http://DE6/DINEN61360#>
PREFIX owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>
PREFIX xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>

SELECT ?IRIs_to_Sort WHERE{
         ?Array a DE6:Data_Element;
         DE6:complex_Data_Type_has_Member ?IRIs_to_Sort .


} ORDER BY ?IRIs_to_Sort

If I just use the "ORDER BY ?IRIs_to_Sort" solution sequence modifier, where as shown in https://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-sparql11-query-20130321/#modOrderBy

then I get the following result (only first ten reults are shown):

http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#10
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#100
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1000
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1001
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1002
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1003
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1004
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1005
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1006
...
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1999
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#20
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#200
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2000
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2001
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2002
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2003
...

Instead, I would expect something like:

http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#1
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#3
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#4
...
http://TABLE/240b9f63-66b9-47f1-9e02-bfd03794bbd9#2099

What am I missing here?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 714

Answers (1)

TallTed
TallTed

Reputation: 9434

IRIs are treated as lexical values for ORDER BY, which means that the numbers in your fragment ids are treated as text, and they are not considered on their own.

A full ORDER BY that I think will work for you, whether your result set includes one or many IRIs with one or many frag-IDs each, but only if all frag-IDs are numeric, would be --

ORDER BY ( xsd:string ( STRBEFORE ( STR ( ?IRIs_to_Sort ), "#" ) ) )
         ( xsd:long ( STRAFTER ( STR ( ?IRIs_to_Sort ), "#" ) ) )

If your frag-IDs are a blend of numeric and alphanumeric, things get rather more complicated.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions