On 11.03.2015 05:59, Tom Morris wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
TL;DR: No concrete issues with SPARQL were mentioned so far; OTOH many *simple* SPARQL queries are not possible in WDQ; there is still time to restrict ourselves -- let's give SPARQL a chance before going back.
TLDR, so SPARQL is the one true way.
That's the danger of giving a TL;DR: people can misunderstand them and then use them as strawmen in arguments. My bad. I suggest you read the rest of the email and comment on this. The discussion is too complex and too important to be reduced to three lines.
Nik and Stas have made a careful analysis of the options, ...
citation please
I was referring to the investigations that have led to this spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1MXikljoSUVP77w7JKf9E...
The choice for SPARQL was not made by me or by anyone who has a special interest in pushing this particular formalism (in fact Nik and Stas can confirm that I have been quite sceptical about the feasibility of using BlazeGraph at first). It was the result of an open-minded discussion among people with very different backgrounds, in search for the most promising technology for our problem. I agree that one could continue this discussion and analysis, but we need to have a balance between theoretical discussions and practical work. It might well happen that we will give up on BlazeGraph and/or SPARQL as the result of practical experiences, but it would be foolish to give up now without even trying.
Markus