Comments on: SPARQL will be formalized as an algebra http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2006/11/sparql-will-be-formalized-as-an-algebra/ A weblog by Richard Cyganiak Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:16:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Andy Seaborne http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/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 It's better than that: FILTERs inside OPTIONALs do <i>not</i> change! It’s better than that: FILTERs inside OPTIONALs do not change!

]]> By: Jeen Broekstra http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/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 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 ;)). 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://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/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 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! 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!

]]>