[Mulgara-dev] 100k models?

[Paul Gearon]

On 4/10/07, Life is hard, and then you die <ronald at innovation.ch> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:05:27PM +1000, Andrae Muys wrote:
> >
> > And I don't have any problem with adding syntactic sugar to itql,
> > I've added a fair amount myself.  Granted it's not something we just
> > do on a whim -- and I would prefer to be either experimenting with a
> > new query language, or implementing sparql -- but judicious use of
> > syntactic sugar can help alot.
>
> I've seen this mentioned before on the list, and I'm curious. What are
> the reasons for wanting a new query language? I.e. what parts of the
> current language aren't working well?
>

The most obvious thing is standards acceptance.  ie.  It is VITAL that we
implement SPARQL.  I mean, who uses an RDBMS that doesn't support SQL?
(Yes, I know such things exist - eg. Sleepycat - but they are very niche).

Beyond that, it would be nice to make some things easier in the language,
eg. * to select all variables; eliminating the need for dummy models in the
from clause (for count subqueries, all constraints with IN expressions,
etc); aliases that work consistently for models; etc.  But these are all
syntactic sugar.

The rest of your conversation seems to be about data operations at a level
above that of RDF.  That's fine (and necessary), but it's beyond the scope
of TQL or SPARQL.

Regards,
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mulgara.org/pipermail/mulgara-dev/attachments/20070410/75ecbd09/attachment.htm>