W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-12@w3.org > April 2019

Re: a plea for parsimony

From: Jürgen Jakobitsch <juergen.jakobitsch@semantic-web.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 16:13:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAETaefwcmQT3-7nL2QS-0WgkLXVRjKzBO64KSkyrPdSE9cPiiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Pelakh <boris.pelakh@semanticarts.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "public-sparql-12@w3.org" <public-sparql-12@w3.org>
hi there,

in any case i've got extended experience in SPARQL evaluation
implementations and am willing to contribute implementations based on rdf4j
api and virtuoso PL/SQL where applicable .
this will give us at least an idea where it is worth the effort and where
things can get messy or complicated..

krj

*Jürgen Jakobitsch*
Senior Technical Consultant
Semantic Web Company GmbH
EU: +43-14021235 <+43%201%204021235>
US: (415) 800-3776
Mobile: +43-676-6212710 <+43%20676%206212710>
https://www.poolparty.biz
https://www.semantic-web.com

*Download E-Book*: Introducing Semantic AI
<https://www.poolparty.biz/machine-learning-meets-semantics/>


Am Mi., 3. Apr. 2019 um 15:59 Uhr schrieb Boris Pelakh <
boris.pelakh@semanticarts.com>:

> We are really in the brain-storming part of the process. We'll have plenty
> of opportunity to shoot ideas down, or put them on a back burner. Sometimes
> a person proposing a feature does not have the expertise to implement it,
> or even assess the feasibility of the implementation. DB vendors will weigh
> in on that aspect of the request, but we don't want to lose the ideas
> before they have been considered. Our primary gating criteria  right now
> should be 1) Is there a demonstrated need for this feature, and 2) does it
> fit well into the existing SPARQL paradigm.
>
>
> Boris
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 3, 2019 9:02:40 AM
> *To:* public-sparql-12@w3.org
> *Subject:* a plea for parsimony
>
> Maybe this is too early in the process of the CG to discuss this, but I
> already worry that there will be many, many cries for new features and not
> enough analysis of the new features for suitability or implementability or
> ease of use or ....
>
> It is easy to propose a new feature.  What gating conditions is the CG
> going
> to impose on what makes it into any report for a future WG?   I am in
> favour
> of stringent gating conditions, even to the point of formal description and
> actual implementation.
>
> peter
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2019 14:14:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 3 April 2019 14:14:34 UTC