Re: paper that Jose was talking about today

* Holger Knublauch <> [2015-12-16 12:33+0100]
> On 16/12/2015 12:25 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >* Holger Knublauch <> [2015-12-16 11:26+0100]
> >>The benchmarking process may be of interest yet then there is no
> >>need to print tables of actual numbers, which (surprise!) show that
> >It also shows that our performance gets much worse as we run out of
> >memory. We didn't adjust our implementation to deal with that because
> >it wouldn't be fair to optimize our code without you getting a chance
> >to do the same. If you want, we can help you set up with the benchmark
> >and spend a couple weeks optimizing. That would change the tone of the
> >paper from "here's a tool for benchmarking" to "here's a performance
> >comparison of ShEx vs. SHACL".
> I am personally not yet interested in optimizations while the
> language is unstable. It is obvious that all kinds of optimizations
> will be possible (for the core language) in the future, but I don't
> have the bandwidth to work on such things right now.
> >
> >
> >>your ShEx implementation is 20 times faster than my current SHACL
> >>prototype. Of course I could make mine orders of magnitude faster by
> >>hard-coding the core language instead of turning them into many
> >>small SPARQL queries. The paper is comparing apples with oranges.
> >How would you propose we demonstrate that the benchmark tool runs and
> >returns useful results?
> >   run it on ShEx alone?
> >   run it on SHACL alone?
> >   add more disclaimers?
> As it is printed right now, a casual reader will skim through the
> table and see the bare numbers. It is not very clear that the SHACL
> implementation is a proof of concept only. I believe if the focus is
> on your benchmarking approach then you could simply compare the
> various ShEx implementations, and not make this appear a
> SHACL-vs-ShEx bake-off?

I'm happy to do that, but I'd like your permission to point to this
email to include a line like "upon request from the author, we're not
including results for the SHACL proof-of-concept implementation." Does
that work for you?

> Holger


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Wednesday, 16 December 2015 13:42:56 UTC