Comments on: SPARQL will be formalized as an algebra http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra Richard Cyganiak's Weblog Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:18:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Andy Seaborne http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16230 Andy Seaborne Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:49:47 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16230 <p>It’s better than that: FILTERs inside OPTIONALs do <i>not</i> change!</p> It’s better than that: FILTERs inside OPTIONALs do not change!

]]> By: Jeen Broekstra http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16217 Jeen Broekstra Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:29:52 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16217 <p>What Bijan said. I do not think catering to early adopters is worth settling for a crippled spec. It’s not fixed until it is out of “alpha-stage” (as I have to keep telling early adopters of some our own software ;)).</p> What Bijan said. I do not think catering to early adopters is worth settling for a crippled spec. It’s not fixed until it is out of “alpha-stage” (as I have to keep telling early adopters of some our own software ;)).

]]> By: Bijan Parsia http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16195 Bijan Parsia Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:21:49 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra#comment-16195 <p>The rolling back from CR was for <em>many</em> reasons, so, in a sense, it’s not the algebra’s fault :)</p> <p>On the other hand, the group is not intending <em>another</em> CR phase, last I checked. Thus it can go straight to PR after another last call. Having an ubercleaner spec and language is worth it, IMHO.</p> <p>As for early adopters, one argument I <em>really</em> dislike in current groups is the worry about invalidating existing queries. Sorry, bzzt, it’s not a spec until it is a spec. One of the prices for earlier adoption is that things <em>may change</em>. I’ve suffered through this several times, but it seems quite wrong to tie a WGs work that way.</p> <p>Of course you <em>want</em> early experimental adoption, but those folks need to realize that they do so at some risk!</p> The rolling back from CR was for many reasons, so, in a sense, it’s not the algebra’s fault :)

On the other hand, the group is not intending another CR phase, last I checked. Thus it can go straight to PR after another last call. Having an ubercleaner spec and language is worth it, IMHO.

As for early adopters, one argument I really dislike in current groups is the worry about invalidating existing queries. Sorry, bzzt, it’s not a spec until it is a spec. One of the prices for earlier adoption is that things may change. I’ve suffered through this several times, but it seems quite wrong to tie a WGs work that way.

Of course you want early experimental adoption, but those folks need to realize that they do so at some risk!

]]>