Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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
I just wanted to echo what Kingsley said here and add one caveat of my own. A *key* part of driving a healthy standards process is extension & innovation performed by implementations. If implementations blindly adhered to the standard, there would be no experience to draw on to motivate and coalesce around designs for future specifications. The sort of innovation done by Virtuoso and many other SPARQL engines is key to a healthy future for SPARQL. The one caveat is that I do agree that, in general, extensions really ought to be compatible with the core standard. This means that if a query is asked or a request made via the SPARQL protocol, it's almost always best for the implementation to behave as per the spec. This allows generic SPARQL clients to safely and consistently access a service, while other clients with knowledge of your extensions can still take full advantage of them. Lee ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Dbpedia-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
