Kendall, With respect to quads, I agree with you. But it took this discourse with Richard, Pat, and Jeen to convince me that SPARQL has come about as far as triples will allow it. I still think that SPARQL ought to have a declarative semantics, and I still think that UNBOUND should not be integral to the language, for the reasons described earlier. Does something in the Charter preclude a declarative semantics? I don't know the answer. Cheers, Bob On May 31, 2007, at 1546, Kendall Clark wrote: > > > On May 31, 2007, at 2:07 PM, Bob MacGregor wrote: > >> I think that the fundamental problem relates to the fact that the >> SPARQL language is already >> obsolete even before it has been finished. This is because >> current RDF, and the graph-based notion >> that it promotes, is also obsolete. > > Bob, > > I think this is useful. It certainly clarifies a lot of what you've > been saying to DAWG over the months. > > Assuming, for a minute, that everything you say about yr use cases > and requirements follows and is coherent, it simply means that the > query language you want is not the one DAWG was chartered to build. > Which may mean there needs to be a new WG or charter or whatever, > but it does *not* provide grounds for objecting to the language > that's been developed. Okay, it provides grounds for anyone who > *shares* yr use cases and requirements (and doesn't have others), > but that's not the majority of the WG, I'd wager. > > It just sounds like Siderean needed or wanted something different > than DAWG was chartered to do, in which case there's not much > anyone can do about that at *this* point. But, of course, that > doesn't moot SPARQL's utility for those who *do* need RDF. > > Consider an analogy: assume that for most of *my* use cases, XML is > obsolete. That could *never* be an objection against XQuery per se. > > Cheers, > Kendall Clark > > Bob MacGregor Chief Scientist Siderean Software, Inc. 310.647.5690 bmacgregor@siderean.com
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 23:52:44 UTC