On 24/04/17 10:57, Rob Vesse wrote:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the standardisation
process works. The intent of a standard is never to specify every
feature that exists or that could exist but rather to specify a set
of standard functionality that will be useful to end users while also
being amenable to multiple interoperable implementations.
For a technology like text indexing where there is a huge variety of
approaches standardising would be hugely difficult. For example if
you pick a particular technology e.g. Lucene then you automatically
exclude any implementations in languages/environments where Lucene is
not usable. If you specify a behaviour then you potentially create a
huge burden for implementers in trying to make disparate underlying
Technologies produce a specific set of answers is for a specific set
of standardised test cases that may be of little relation to
real-world use cases.
Indeed, all those issues.
For SPARQL 1.1, text indexing was discussed as a possible work item
(consult the email archives) but the task was huge. There was no
standard text search language (unlike regex, which are defined by XQuery).
No one volunteered to do the work.
Typical WG lifecycle - reasonable number of people at the start when
defining the work program, fewer to do the work, fewer still to complete
the work, respond to comments, etc.
Andy
Additionally each round of standardisation takes input based upon
commonly used extensions in the real-world as input and works to
standardise those. At the time that SPARQL 1.1 was standardised
indexing was not a widely used extension so there was no impetus to
standardise it. One might imagine that a future round of
standardisation would choose to consider this as one candidate for a
new feature in a future Version of the standard.
Rob
On 22/04/2017 11:02, "baran...@gmail.com" <baran...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...(text search with text-indexing) cannot be offically expressed in
SPARQL.
I don't think Jena Development was responsible for this, but i assume
they know who and i as a user want also know who is in the history of
SPARQL development responsible for this idiocy...
