On 11.03.2015 11:26, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Am 11.03.2015 um 10:43 schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
I was referring to the investigations that have led to this spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/spreadsheets/d/1MXikljoSUVP77w7JKf9EXN40OB-ZkMqT8Y5b2NYVKbU/edit#gid=0
That's the backend evaluation spreadsheet. I'm not arguing against BlazeGraph as
a backend at all.
I'm questioning the outcome of the public query language evaluation as shown in
this sheet:
https://docs.google.com/a/wikimedia.de/spreadsheets/d/16bbifhuoAiO7bRQ2-0mYU5FJ9ILczC-u9oCJsPdn9IU/edit#gid=0
Have a look at the weights, and st the comments, especially Gabriel's.
Right, but the overall conclusion still was to use SPARQL there, and
this made further discussion of particular scores irrelevant. As it is,
the sheet wildly mis-estimates the relative prominence of SPARQL and WDQ
(e.g., "documentation" and "support from people"). Search for "SPARQL"
in Amazon to get a rough idea. There are a number of free and commercial
products implementing it. I am teaching SPARQL to computer science
students since at least 5 years, and I know many other people who do.
The DBpedia community is using it on Wikipedia-based data. If you have a
SPARQL-related question, ask at [email protected]; there is
usually good support there.
This is really comparing apples and oranges, and it would not do justice
to Magnus's work to put him up against an established technology
standard. WDQ is great for what it does, but if we go "official" we
should move towards what people outside of the Wikidata cosmos are
using. After all, this is the main target group for a public query endpoint.
Markus
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
