[sc34wg3] TMQL, State of Affairs
Tue, 24 May 2005 16:52:33 +1000
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.
I tried, but obviously not successful:
Otherwise, everything what Jan said, hits the point.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Barta" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.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
> > 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
> > 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
> > email@example.com
> > http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3
> sc34wg3 mailing list