Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > 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. Lee,
To clarify I meant: extend cleanly i.e, above the core. Thus, people that want to work with the core can do so without hitting the basic vs extension quandary due to poor partitioning of a given extension and the core :-) > 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. Exactly! > > Lee > -- 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
