W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > May 2007

Re: comments on SPARQL Query Language for RDF

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:46:11 -0400
Message-Id: <5E96740B-4B56-4F82-9F53-898BCF9D5D1B@monkeyfist.com>
Cc: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@aduna-software.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Richard Newman <rnewman@franz.com>
To: Bob MacGregor <bmacgregor@siderean.com>

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.


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Consider an analogy: assume that for most of *my* use cases, XML is  
obsolete.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.

Kendall Clark
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2007 22:46:41 UTC

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