W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2004

RE: UC&R feedback from PL designer community (programming languag e vs limited expressivity)

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:44:55 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E80803E3C065@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>


I agree - the goal is Data Access and making RDF data available to existing
programming languages, with all their investment in development tools and
optimization, is important.  We are designing a data access language for RDF
- we can finding out what that is (well - I am anyway).

If that happens to end up being a full programming language, then so be it.
But creating yet another programming language needs a purpose and it isn;'t
the default choice.  So far, the ability to compute fullly and generally
(and conveniently) over information extracted from the RDF graph has not
arisen as far as I can see.

If we can do efficient extraction of information, and leave further
processing of the results, for example presentation of results, to existsing
systems that are good at what they are designed for, I think we can declare
victory.

It may be that some computation needs to be pushed to the server (c.f stored
procedures) for efficiency but doing so requires great care on the web.
(Nowadays, even Enterprise intranet solutions need to be careful as systems
consolidate into large datacentres, and are not provided by local
processing.)

	Andy

PS The discussion does make some intersting points and does lead to:

"""
But when you think about it, there are worse ways. If you are going to do
the design work by committee, it makes sense to at least agree on some
specific goals.
"""

-------- Original Message --------
> From: Dan Connolly <>
> Date: 26 August 2004 16:27
> 
> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 07:16, Kendall Clark wrote:
> > I find many of these comments to be unhelpful, but we should probably
> > consider them anyway: 
> > 
> > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/view/182
> 
> 
> "When people design query languages, they often seem to forget they are
> still designing a programming language."
> 
> I didn't forget, but I don't think we are designing a programming
> language. At least... I hope not, as I said earlier...
> 
>  Limited complexity requirement? Dan Connolly (Thursday, 15 July)
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2004JulSep/0082.html
> 
> 
> I'm still not inclined to advocate that position, due to awkwardness
> of doing that while chairing. But I don't mind if somebody else
> picks it up.
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2004 15:45:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:20 GMT