Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 03/01/2015 12:30 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 
> On Mar 1, 2015 9:24 AM, "Jose Emilio Labra Gayo" <jelabra@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jelabra@gmail.com>> wrote:

[...]

> Hi Jose,
> 
> I think that we are in a point where we need concrete solutions or proof
> that your suggestion will be able to handle the requirements
> 
> Best, Dimitris

Precisely.

It is fun to generate axiomatizations and model-theoretic semantics for
small languages.  This fun stuff can eventually lead to large advances.  It
can also be fun to fill in particular bits of large systems, such as
producing algorithms for particular language constructs.  This fun stuff can
make formal work useful in practical settings.


However, there are also the not-fun parts.  Here a big not-fun part is
covering enough of the requirements to satisfy the working group.   This
not-fun part is a lot of work.  Who is going to do that?

I was hoping that there would be something from Shape Expressions that could
be used as a large chunk of the not-fun part.   Hence my surprise that SE2
is a smaller language with a completely different semantics and very
different intuitions.


If the Shape Expressions people want to produce something to take the place
of SPARQL/SPIN they need to present something quickly that can sway the
working group.

peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU8zjfAAoJECjN6+QThfjzy48H/0wzdmsVv2fzvhPtPRLwb+UB
BB6BNxCflnvAYqYVGrkqFuf7o8377A+LucIS8HWggpx+93IuSleYoHvslurdxO3N
R5IDi/d4gp7mX9Rai7AcOkY7PYbvD60UsNbqHm+j8Aod+OMcFbbV+msCRcUCAsv8
B8QwkDD6eTPOWpvxtq7QSiTz84ZpHyArUKPGVyAVV+Vds4eooW4xrx2AQHsmdo2/
XI6gc7Tp+QBSVVsoOCPPvxQfK0GhPou9pO/HN1Vq7lW8+raJVz7LY3TTz1d0bxjh
5IO0Ftf35jJqsP0oGJwFm/wpgtzmaU29LFNQO0GdT4WiwtS8oB72P97BCqIYEFQ=
=cmWQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 16:06:22 UTC