Am 11.03.2015 um 10:08 schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
What I don't see is how the use of a WDQ API on
top of SPARQL would make the
overall setup any less vulnerable; it mainly introduces an additional component
on top of SPARQL, and we can have a simpler SPARQL-based filter component there
if we want, which is likely to be more effective in controlling usage.
I disagree on both points: I believe it would be neither simpler, nor more
effective. That's pretty much the core of it.
However, I admit that this is currently a gut feeling, a concern I want to share
and discuss. It should be investigated before making a decision.
There is a huge cost to
designing a query API from scratch, and I would really like to avoid this.
Which is why I want to use one that already exists (WDQ), and back it by
something that already exists (SPARQL).
Supporting WDQ on top of SPARQL would retain WDQ in
its current form and still
support standards --
That's exactly what I propose.
if we want to develop an official custom API, we will
up on both of these benefits, and at the same time push the ETA for Wikidata
queries far into the future.
I disagree. If, as I believe, sandboxing WDQ is simpler than sandboxing SPARQL,
using WDQ would allow us to have a public query API sooner. But whether my
believe is correct needs to be investigated, of course.
All of this has been discussed and considered in the
past. I don't see why one
would be kicking off discussions now that question everything decided in
meetings and telcos over the past weeks. There is absolutely no new information
compared to what has led to the consensus that we all (including Daniel) had
The consensus as I remember it was "we should be able to expose SPARQL safely,
if we invest enough time to sandbox it". The issue of lock-in was mentioned but
not really assessed. The relative cost for sandboxing WDQ vs SPARQL, and the
impact on the ETA, was not discussed much. The ad-hoc evaluation spreadsheet
shows WDQ as a second to SPARQL (before MQL and ASK), mainly because SPARQL is
The downside of that power doesn't factor into the evaluation, nor does the
factor of lock-in. Shifting the relative weight in the spreadsheet from power to
sustainability makes WDQ come out at the top.
After the initial enthusiasm, this has made me increasingly uneasy over the last
weeks. Hence my mail to this list.
Senior Software Developer
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.