W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: [sub-select] Some examples and discussion

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:22:53 +0000
Message-Id: <35F321C3-F699-49C7-AA44-974DC2DDABB3@garlik.com>
To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Ivan Mikhailov wrote:

> Chimezie,
>
>> I don't think I agree that optimization and implementation effort  
>> (which is
>> a direct consequence of the complexity introduced by more  
>> expressive query
>> forms such as sub-selects) should *not* be a factor.
>
> I'd say even more.
>
> Optimization and implementation effort must be ignored as decision  
> factor, "must" in its ultimate, RFC 2119 meaning.

I'm not sure I agree. Implementation effort is certainly relevant,  
there is no point try to specify a feature that not enough people will  
implement to make it to rec. Optimisation effort is a different matter.

> The reason is that language users are much more numerous than  
> language implementations.
> A book composer do not pay much attention to the author's comfort  
> when it conflicts with the comfort of readers.
> A public transport dispatcher would ignore personal wishes from  
> train crew --- the railway is built not for their needs.
> We're in similar circumstances.
>
> IMHO, there's a short list of excuses for excluding a user-friendly  
> feature from spec:

User-friendliness is a matter of judgement. What one person thinks is  
clear and obvious will be confusing to another. It depends on  
background and prior experience as much as anything else.

- Steve

-- 
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  
9AD
Received on Friday, 13 March 2009 17:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT