Thanks Aidan, very generous of you. And yes, it is difficult. On 18 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Aidan Hogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hugh, you are correct and I would like to apologise for my part in that as > the main instigator. > > On my side however, I found it difficult to see my statements deconstructed > and rearranged into various positions I never took and that I very much > disagree with [6], but yes, I still should have just stated my position as > clearly as possible and left it at that (why I personally take exception to a > claim like "SPARQL scales" is again covered by [1-5]). > > On the plus side though, perhaps some interesting discussion has arisen out > of this in various threads. (In particular, I found Leigh's comments very > much constructive.) > > /Aidan > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalability > > [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractable_problem > > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-complete > > [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_homomorphism > > [5] Jorge Pérez, Marcelo Arenas, Claudio Gutierrez: Semantics and > complexity of SPARQL. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 34(3) (2009) > > [6] "XPath can replace SPARQL" (I never said that), "XPath is better than > SPARQL" (I said it was more scalable in the general case being tractable and > parallelisable), "XYZ is scalable and can do what SPARQL does" (obviously > nonsense if I hold that SPARQL doesn't scale in the general case), "because > implementation X cannot do Y, this proves the SPARQL doesn't scale" (I never > took this position; I was directly asked for /examples/ and I gave the > simplest ones I could think of; the proof that SPARQL is not scalable [1-3] > is in [5] above) ... and again, I do like SPARQL a lot and I'm personally not > a fan of anything XML, let alone XPath. So now I'll shut up. :) > > > On 18/04/2013 12:05, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> On 4/18/13 6:41 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >>> Someone starts a thread (in this case Luca and his Restpark), about >>> something they would like to get some feedback on. >>> In the very first reply, an issue arises that is at best tangential to >>> the thread subject, but (in my opinion) has no direct bearing on it: >>> issues around "SPARQL scales?" and perhaps in comparison with REST, etc. >>> >>> 40+ messages follow on "scaling", with the few on Restpark interspersed. >>> Only the hardiest souls interested in Restpark would have combed >>> through these messages to see the topic that interests them >>> (or people who are retired with nothing better to do because they >>> don't like gardening :-) ) >>> >>> This is no way to run a mailing list to get the widest engagement. >>> It was clear very early (third message?) that the scaling topic had >>> arisen - at that stage the discussion should have moved to a new >>> thread on scaling; >>> or simply changed the subject line to have "SPARQL Scaling - was >>> Restpark - Minimal…". >>> Then the people who might want to discuss Restpark can do so in their >>> own thread, and the scaling people can have their thread, without >>> being bothered by the Restpark discussion if they don't want to be. >>> Simples! >>> >>> I wouldn't bother, but this seems to be the normal way this lists >>> works - check out the archive if you want! >>> It makes it quite dysfunctional. >>> >>> Note that I did not simply add this message to the Restpark thread, >>> which is what usually happens in this list! >>> >>> Best >>> Hugh >>> >>> >> Hugh, >> >> The Restpark thread diverged for two presumptive reasons: >> >> 1. REST and SPARQL are mutually exclusive >> 2. Strawman on "scale" -- the simple point was supposed to be that >> consensus and adoption are mercurial pursuits due to pattern explosion. >> >> For the record, I have nothing about attempting to layer RESTful >> interactions for simplified interactions with Linked Data. There will >> never be a time when I am against options, even when I know the path to >> consensus and adoption has a high probability of becoming an odyssey. >> >> I few weeks ago a similar discussion emerged on Twitter, without the >> unfortunate "mutual exclusion" undertone, and a conversation developed >> progressed to the point were we concluded that a post to this forum be >> a nice route for seeking collaborators [1][2]. >> >> That all said, I should have forked the thread (with a new topic >> heading) the moment the context for my use of "scale" was misunderstood. >> >> >> Links: >> >> 1. https://twitter.com/stephanef/status/317650285470298112 -- a thread >> about RESTful patterns for working with ontologies and vocabularies >> 2. https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/317661048486363138 -- scheduled >> for implementation acknowledgement. >> > >
