- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:22:53 +0000
- To: SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 13 Mar 2009, at 16:08, Ivan Mikhailov wrote: > Chimezie, > >> I don't think I agree that optimization and implementation effort >> (which is >> a direct consequence of the complexity introduced by more >> expressive query >> forms such as sub-selects) should *not* be a factor. > > I'd say even more. > > Optimization and implementation effort must be ignored as decision > factor, "must" in its ultimate, RFC 2119 meaning. I'm not sure I agree. Implementation effort is certainly relevant, there is no point try to specify a feature that not enough people will implement to make it to rec. Optimisation effort is a different matter. > The reason is that language users are much more numerous than > language implementations. > A book composer do not pay much attention to the author's comfort > when it conflicts with the comfort of readers. > A public transport dispatcher would ignore personal wishes from > train crew --- the railway is built not for their needs. > We're in similar circumstances. > > IMHO, there's a short list of excuses for excluding a user-friendly > feature from spec: User-friendliness is a matter of judgement. What one person thinks is clear and obvious will be confusing to another. It depends on background and prior experience as much as anything else. - Steve -- Steve Harris Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK +44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 13 March 2009 17:23:33 UTC