I would say something different. Typically SQL is something I would not touch with a barge pole. At the same time it is used in so many tools that make use of SQL behind the scenes. I do not care really what flavour of SQL is in use, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

The same holds for SPARQL. I do not care to learn another language. For SPARQL to be relevant it needs to be embedded in tools that provide a function. To be brutally honest WDQ is useful BECAUSE it is used in tools. On its own it is interesting but hardly of interest.

I do understand the need for open standards but it is like so many other standards, it is in the implementation that it has its merit. They are the tools, that is what I am looking for.

On 30 October 2015 at 13:30, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
On 10/29/15 6:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> For me SPARQL may be awesome but as long as it does not integrate with
> tools and is all over the place, it remains a niche; it is there for
> some but not others. Once it does integrate and is mostly hidden from
> view, its power becomes relevant. This has been as true for WDQ; most
> people use its engine in tools but do not make queries themselves.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM


SPARQL is an Open Standard for querying relations. Application &
Services may or may not be SPARQL-compliant, not the other way around.
Would you say "SQL doesn't integrate with anything" for instance?

SPARQL and SQL are query languages that target different representations
of relations. Both are Open Standards.


Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Wikidata mailing list