W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Applying the relational model to SPARQL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:03:53 -0500
Message-Id: <beb5f94982ce558b7da9d2544e69b07b@w3.org>
Cc: "public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org" <public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, "Andrew Newman" <andrewfnewman@gmail.com>
To: "Bob MacGregor" <bmacgregor@siderean.com>

On Nov 10, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Bob MacGregor wrote:
> I stopped commenting on SPARQL quite a while back, roughly around the 
> time
> when some newbie declared that a use case was needed to justify adding
> sorting to SPARQL.

Hmm... that use case was provided, and sorting has been added.

> That brings us to SPARQL.  SPARQL is a major disappointment.  The most
> grievous error is the distinction between the WHERE and FILTER clauses.

I'm sympathetic to that comment and many of your others...

 >The primary movers of the SPARQL committee chose to believe that they
> were inventing a brave new logic language for a universe of 
> applications
> markedly different than the relational database world that has been so
> spectacularly successful for the last 25 years.

That sort of rhetoric is really not constructive. It would be easier
to address your substantive concerns if you left that sort of thing
out. The people in the SPARQL Working Group are real people
with their names all over public mailing list archives and meeting
records. Different WG members have different motivations, some
of which I agree with more than others.

You seem to have a lot of experience relevant to the choice
of SPARQL features and requirements. I'm interested to continue
that discussion.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 20:04:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:52:08 UTC