- From: Rob Shearer <Rob.Shearer@networkinference.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:00:36 -0700
- To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "RDF Data Access Working Group" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 02:25:30PM -0700, Rob Shearer wrote: > > > > a variable like "?this"? Do their expectations really matter > > > so little? > > > > As a general note, yes. Their expectations matter very little. > > Fine, but *you* get to tell them that! I was rather under the impression that the subscribers to this mailing list constituted a significant fraction of the entire RDQL community... > > RDQL is > > used in a tiny community and is clearly in the realm of the > "proprietary > > one-off language". > > Really? Proprietary in what sense? There's a public document > describing it, multiple open source implementations, no patent > encumbrances. It's neither proprietary nor one off *in any > sense*. That's just misleading and false. Proprietary meaning it's not perceived as community-owned, and one-off in the sense that there's not a lot of expectation that a lot of different commercially viable implementations will spring up. (As an analogy, there are a ridiculous number of web-based interface frameworks which companies have fully documented and released for public use. They're still parochial, proprietary, one-off solutions and not commodity APIs.) It's really more about market perception than any particular technical feature: there's a danger that the DAWG output could be viewed in this way. Right now, if a company commits resources to using RDQL, they perceive them as costs for doing that one project, NOT as an investment in developing commodity skills. That is very different from they way they view training employees in SQL or XQuery. Like it or not, that's the reality of how businesses look at these languages.
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 2004 22:03:28 UTC