On 11.03.2015 05:59, Tom Morris wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Markus Krötzsch
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
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, ...
I was referring to the investigations that have led to this spreadsheet:
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.