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

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

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC