Hi! > 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.
WDQ query language is somewhat limited as I understand. We can of write WDQ->SPARQL translator, I imagine, I think even it's a good idea to do this for BC/transition reasons. But I'm not sure restricting ourselves to only this syntax, created with a different tool in mind, is the best idea. People would ask us for full SPARQL as soon as they'd know we're running SPARQL db. > 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. Well, there's other side of implementing the actual WDQ feature set in SPARQL which may take some time, since these languages are a bit different (esp. in tree traversal aspects). But I think WDQ language support should be on the agenda, I'm just not sure it should be the first item. -- Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
