On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:05:19 +0200, Martynas Jusevičius
<[email protected]> wrote:
"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.
You 'fundamentally misunderstand' what i want to achieve: A bit
background-info about problems waiting in my backhead since so many years
for answers and for me the comments of Rob or Andy has been very
informative how they think and vice versa they got how a user thinks about
this and that in the context of this thread.
The rest sounds to me like a posting to 'Army Times' though i miss '!' at
the end.
baran
***********
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 at 13.30, <[email protected]> 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, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 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/
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
