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

Re: sparql protocol simplex updated (protocolRootReferent issue)

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:06:30 -0500
To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20041209160630.GE14084@monkeyfist.com>

On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:48:17PM +0000, Seaborne, Andy wrote:

> Kendall says the design is neutral to service-centric vs model-centric 
> viewpoints, with multiple operations per service end point (SP)
> already.  

Actually, I've been saying something weaker: I worked hard to try to
keep the design as neutral as possible. That was a primary design
goal. Not sure if I succeeded or not.

> I can also live with services (or models) that offer multiple query 
> languages since the protocol doc says there are two already (SPARQL, 
> getGraph).  Why these two when the protocol is general?  I'll let Kendall 
> decide. (I think of getGraph as a QL because querying is just getting some 
> information and getGraph does that.)

Please, Andy, I respectfully ask that you *stop* doing that. 

The protocol doc does *not* say "there are two query languages, SPARQL
and getGraph". I don't believe that getGraph is a query language! If
the document says that, it's a bug and I'll fix it as soon as I find
it.

You take the document to *imply* that because you believe -- rightly
or wrongly, I don't know -- that "querying is just getting some
information and getGraph does that". But that's very different than
the document *saying* that explicitly.

I'd like to keep the distinction between what the document *says* and
what you infer from the document because of beliefs of yours that
*aren't in the document* as clear as possible.

I do intend to put in examples of other query languages -- Versa,
iTQL, and N3QL come to mind as good candidates -- because I think our
protocol should be capable of conveying query languages other than
SPARQL.

But I don't agree that getGraph is a query language. (If it is, then
every RDF graph is a query and every XML instance is a query, and I
find that way of speaking odd at the very least.)

Sorry if this seems snarky or rude. Not my intention at all.

Kendall Clark
-- 
Sometimes it's appropriate, even patriotic, to be ashamed
of your country. -- James Howard Kunstler
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 16:07:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:21 GMT