- From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:57:35 -0700
- To: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Network Inference has objected to both the "optional match" and "result limit" requirements adopted by the working group at the Carlsbad face-to-face. One major concern throughout the standardization process is that the group could easily be drawn into new research, and end up standardizing a language based on a formal model which is not fully understood by the community, or even the group adopting it. "Optional match", in particular, worries me in that it necessarily complicates the model underlying the query language. Beyond purely theoretical concerns about the ramifications of this addition, a more complex model will almost certainly make any query language more difficult for users to understand. "Limit" is also clearly outside the simple algebra of variable bindings and triple patterns which is described by the other adopted requirements. With no definition of ordering, a "limit" feature violates many properties which can be desirable for a query language, including a simple desire for deterministic results. In both cases, Network Inference certainly sees value in both features, and supports both as objectives for this working group. If the potential problems related to these requirements can be overcome, then our objection to the classification of these features as "requirements" should not prevent the group from regaining consensus on a final recommendation. However, Network Inference encourages the group to remain open to the possibility of a recommendation which does not include these features in its initial release if their addition proves to be problematic.
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2004 20:59:57 UTC