Michael Haas wrote: > Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Micheal, >> >> The only issue here is that it isn't documented properly. >> > > > The real issue is that it is not SPARQL. Some things you're doing are > not in the SPARQL W3C recommendation.
Embracing and coherently extending the SPARQL standard isn't a crime as long as you don't break the core standard. Do you seriously think we should wait for consensus re. how and when SPARQL matches and exceeds SQL (which is darn important)? btw - I am sure you've seen: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-sparql-features-20090702/, now digest that, and rewind to a query language without aggregates and update capabilities as part of a message that reads: Web as a structured database that facilitates powerful analytics etc.. Kingsley > > Handing out partial results to SPARQL results is what I would consider > broken behaviour, especially as there is no way to tell the SPARQL > client that there more results available. SPASQL does not count, and > HTTP response (codes) are not specified in the W3C recommendation > (other than 200, 400 and 500 - as far as response codes are concerned, > of course). > > > >> And the real question is simply this: how do you answer queries at >> Web Scale? > >> >> Do you seriously expect a SPARQL endpoint to deliver complete results >> for every conceivable query (good, bad, complex) in predictable time, >> really? > > > As I said, I acknowledge this problem. It is not easy to solve and I > do not have a good solution handy. > > >> >> If you prefer the old behavior, no problem, we switch off this >> feature, but don't jump to conclusions re. its purpose. >> >> >> btw - I could simply have opted for the basic single server edition >> of Virtuoso, and in retrospect, maybe that's what should be out there. >> >> Do remember, we are offering a service at our cost to the community, >> please do remember this. >> > > There is no need to be offended. I'd prefer a technical discussion - > I'm sorry if I have insulted you. > > > From your follow-up: > > > BTW - set the timeout to "0" and the "Anytime Query" feature is > disabled re. the endpoint. > > Can you please point me to the part of the SPARQL Protocol > recommendation [0] where it talks about setting timeouts or somesuch? > > > It might be a good idea to disable the anytime query feature for those > using the SPARQL protocol and do some kind of opt-in for those using > clients who can speak your extensions. > > I'd rather have a HTTP 500 when my queries fail instead of getting > possibly wrong data without being told there's something missing. > > Of course, I could all be wrong and what you're doing is standards > compliant - feel free to prove me wrong :) > > > [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdf-sparql-protocol-20080115/ > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
