How long has WDQ been in service? What proportion of the total aggregate lifetime Wikidata apps, presuming it survives, do the current, as of Mar 2015, Wikidata apps represent?
Should the question of premature optimization (or optimisation) be considered? Tom p.s. Since your opinion doesn't represent the official team position, what, exactly, *IS* the official team position? pps I don't disagree that there are strong negative aspects to using SPARQL, but you weaken your argument by saying that the status quo is the only way forward On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Daniel Kinzler < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all! > > After the initial enthusiasm, I have grown increasingly wary of the > prospect of > exposing a SPARQL endpoint as Wikidata's canonical query interface. I > decided to > share my (personal and unfinished) thoughts about this on this list, as > food for > thought and a basis for discussion. > > Basically, I fear that exposing SPARQL will lock us in with respect to the > backend technology we use. Once it's there, people will rely on it, and > taking > it away would be very harsh. That would make it practically impossible to > move > to, say, Neo4J in the future. This is even more true if if expose vendor > specific extensions like RDR/SPARQL*. > > Also, exposing SPARQL as our primary query interface probably means > abruptly > discontinuing support for WDQ. It's pretty clear that the original WDQ > service > is not going to be maintained once the WMF offers infrastructure for > wikidata > queries. So, when SPARQL appears, WDQ would go away, and dozens of tools > will > need major modifications, or would just die. > > > So, my proposal is to expose a WDQ-like service as our primary query > interface. > This follows the general principle having narrow interfaces to make it > easy to > swap out the implementation. > > But the power of SPARQL should not be lost: A (sandboxed) SPARQL endpoint > could > be exposed to Labs, just like we provide access to replicated SQL databases > there: on Labs, you get "raw" access, with added performance and > flexibility, > but no guarantees about interface stability. > > In terms of development resources and timeline, exposing WDQ may actually > get us > a public query endpoint more quickly: sandboxing full SPARQL may likely > turn out > to be a lot harder than sandboxing the more limited set of queries WDQ > allows. > > Finally, why WDQ and not something else, say, MQL? Because WDQ is > specifically > tailored to our domain and use case, and there already is an ecosystem of > tools > that use it. We'd want to refine it a bit I suppose, but by and large, it's > pretty much exactly what we need, because it was built around the actual > demand > for querying wikidata. > > > So far my current thoughts. Note that this is not a decision or > recommendation > by the Wikidata team, just my personal take. > > -- daniel > > > -- > Daniel Kinzler > Senior Software Developer > > Wikimedia Deutschland > Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-tech mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
