Huh? I’m not sure how the page you linked is related to GraphQL, except maybe that they are both querying paradigms. They seem largely orthogonal. Am I missing something?

From the Wikipedia page:

"It is the first graphical query language, using visual tables where the user would enter commands, example elements and conditions. Many graphical front-ends for databases use the ideas from QBE today."

GraphQL seems to borrow the name. Graph [ical] Q [uery] L [anguage]

It could be a pure coincidence, but then, further down:

"GraphQL a QBE for JSON front-ends."

As evidenced by the reply, the parent seems to have predicted correctly that there are people who have no idea the two are related, i.e., one is descended from the other.

Absolutely I can understand QBE being prior art for a number of querying paradigms. However, the two aren’t closely related.

As far as the name goes, the “graph” in GraphQL likely refers to the data graph (as opposed to “graphical”) as data graph traversal is one of the key selling points of the language. The other one being homoiconicity between request and response.

"prior art"

Are you suggesting GraphQL is novel and non-obvious? The term "prior art" of course comes from the patent law.

Are you suggesting that the term "prior art" does not imply any relation (as in "relate to")? If so, that's false.

I made no such suggestions. I was suggesting that it’s certainly plausible that QBE influenced aspects of GraphQL. The “prior art” being QBE, not GraphQL.

Were you suggesting that GraphQL is a homoiconic language?

In QBE the request resembles the response.

Yes they are both homoiconic. I said that was one of the key selling points of GraphQL. I don’t understand the conflict.

Who said there was a conflict? The two are related. That was the original point.