"Should have been, could have been". It is how it is, your opinion is just one of many and you will achieve nothing by complaining on this list. Go create a W3C Community Group and initiate some real work to achieve the standardisation that you think is required.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 at 13.30, <baran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > > You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the standardisation process > > works. > > The point is not whether i understand standardisation or not, the point is > your argument > > > .... At the time that SPARQL 1.1 was standardised indexing was not a > > widely used extension so there was no impetus to standardise it. > > No supply, no demand. The torture creating for each property text-indexing > out of SPARQL syntax and than beeing even not compatible to other SPARQL > implementations yields no statistical statement whether text-indexing has > been widely used or not. > > In my posting i pointed up, text-indexing should have had top priority > starting from scratch to develope a query language for Semantic Web > environment, you don't think so and this has nothing to do with > 'fundamental' knowledge of a user, this has something to do setting > different priorities. > > Where SPARQL is now relating to text-indexing, this is 'fundamentally' not > acceptable for me. And you seem to be 'fundamentally' satisfied... > > baran > > ************* > > > > 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... > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >
