[sc34wg3] TMQL, State of Affairs

[Robert Barta]

On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:21:34PM +0100, Martin Bryan wrote:
> ....................................... Our point is that you have to
> explain to the world outside of the small community of developers involved
> in TMQL why yet another query language is needed, and why XQuery or
> somehting based on the tried and tested ISO-standardized SQL approach would
> not do just as well.

Martin,

I tried, but obviously not successful:

   http://topicmaps.it.bond.edu.au/docs/37

Otherwise, everything what Jan said, hits the point.

\rho

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Barta" <rho@bigpond.net.au>
> To: <sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 12:51 AM
> Subject: [sc34wg3] TMQL, State of Affairs
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Even under the risk that this cannot be properly digested before
> > Ams'dam, a few short remarks; also in the light of the UK NB position
> > on the feasibility of TMQL:
> >
> >   - The spec is more or less in itself consistent (well), modulo
> >     the exception where we (Lars and /me) need feedback and guidance
> >     from the committee. Lars will certainly walk through them.
> >
> >   - The parts concerning the _formal_ semantics have NOT been written,
> >     because partly they depend on the above and depend of what happens
> >     with TMRM. Doing this sort of work takes _MUCH_ time, so we want
> >     to do it ONCE only. We do not have the resources like, say, the
> >     SPARQL people.
> >
> >   - Speaking for myself, I do not have any strong feelings that TMQL
> >     should move forward in the standardization process. More important
> >     to me is the concensus, whether the current draft the way to go or
> >     whether larger changes are to be made.
> >
> >   - Regarding the doubts whether TMQL is implementable, several
> >     comments:
> >
> >      - It seems to be. :-)
> >
> >      - The spec should contain enough _informal_ semantics to understand
> the
> >        machinery (with a few exceptions). It is boring (!) read, I admit.
> >
> >      - Mapping TMQL onto a relational schema simply proves that a TMQL
> >        expression can be mapped into an SQL expression. If we assume that
> >        SQL is sufficiently powerful (Turing complete?), then this proves
> >        almost nothing.
> >
> >        Mapping TMQL onto XQuery simply proves that a TMQL expression
> >        can be mapped to an XQuery expression. Otherwise, same argument
> >        as above.
> >
> >      - What is probably meant is the scalability of such mappings, but
> >        'Scalability' is a _design_ criterion which may depend on the
> >        application. No computer language 'scales' per se.
> >
> >        Give me _any_ relational database on _any_ database platform on
> >        _any_ OS on _any hardware. I can bring it to its knees.
> >
> >        Give me _any_ programming language on _any_ platform. I bring
> >        it to its knees.
> >
> >        Scale with what, anyway? Number of users? Number of queries per
> sec? Size
> >        of maps, complexity of maps? Complexity of the inferencing
> ontology?
> >        Complexity of the query statement?
> >
> >     I guess, it is as it is: Some queries will be fast in a particular
> >     implementation, some will be slow. If someone uses this together
> >     with higher-order inferencing, then queries might not even
> >     terminate!
> >
> >     The developers/users rule and decide.
> >
> > \rho
> > _______________________________________________
> > sc34wg3 mailing list
> > sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> > http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sc34wg3 mailing list
> sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
> http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
>