[xquery-talk] MarkLogic using JSONiq for processing JSON ?

[daniela florescu]

Michael,

Nothing seems fundamentally “right” or “wrong” one way or the other in what you say.
(syntax in XQuery 3.1 seems uglier then JSONiq to me though…..)

So, to me,  the decisions of the W3C working group seems random, and rather based on a two years old
kind of a  tantrum “I WANT TO BE DIFFERETENT JUST BECAUSE…..I WANT IT."


……...rather then justified by any technical reasons.


This is why this community will die (unless they change, and this unfortunately involves changing the leaders).


Because everybody thinks about their small itsy-bitsy ego, and their itsy-bisty market, instead of the bigger picture.


D.


> On May 7, 2015, at 2:36 AM, Michael Kay <mike at saxonica.com> wrote:
> 
> I don’t know anything about the MarkLogic implementation, but some of the key differences between XQuery 3.1 and the JSONiq proposal are:
> 
> At the data model level:
> 
> * Maps can use any atomic value as the key, it does not have to be a string
> * The members of an array are sequences, not necessarily items
> * JSON’s null is represented as an empty sequence, not as a new atomic data type
> 
> At the syntax level:
> 
> * In XQ3.1, Map constructors use the syntax map{ a:b, c:d } rather than bare curlies
> * XQ 3.1 introduces a lookup operator for maps and arrays: employee?name, or book?author?1
> 
> There are many differences of detail, for example XQ3.1 allows an array to be atomized, so that sum() over an array does "the right thing”.
> 
> Of course these differences were all very hotly debated over a long period of time, and I wouldn’t even attempt to summarize the arguments.
> 
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
> mike at saxonica.com <mailto:mike at saxonica.com>
> +44 (0) 118 946 5893
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 28 Apr 2015, at 18:15, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com <mailto:dflorescu at me.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Kurt (Cagle) 
>> 
>> on linkedin to the same answer bellow you answered me:
>> 
>> "As I said, first glance says it's close, but I'm not completely up to date on the JSONIQ spec. I know when I talked to a key developer of mutual acquaintance, he indicated that he followed JSONIQ, but that was still while it was under development."
>> 
>> 
>> Kurt, do you have now a better idea about the technical differences between the two JSOn query languages: JSONiq designed and supported by Zorba
>> and the one supported by MarkLogic ? 
>> 
>> Or does someone else ?
>> 
>> What is the technical rationale for making the two languages different ? Any strong technical reasons ?
>> 
>> If there are no strong technical reasons, and the two are different just for the sake of being different, that's very sad. 
>> 
>> Relational databases survived for 30 years because those guys were brilliant business people and 
>>  understood the power of a standard/common language and common APIs for all vendors.
>> 
>> It strengthens the (entire) community to the point that, even 30 years later, it is almost impossible to get SQL out of their hands....
>> 
>> It's very unfortunate that the NoSQL community, and especially MarkLogic who considers themselves the "leaders" in this market,
>> don't get that simple fact....and they had to twist JSONiq here and there in order to avoid admitting they use the language designed by the
>> Zorba community and avoid calling it JSONiq....
>> 
>> Such a lack of vision is sad.
>> 
>>  But I digress.
>> 
>> I am still curious if someone compiled a list of technical differences.
>> 
>> Thanks, best regards
>> Dana
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 5:24 PM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com <mailto:dflorescu at me.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I heard that MarkLogic will be using JSONiq for processing JSON.
>>> http://www.jsoniq.org <http://www.jsoniq.org/>
>>> 
>>> Sounds like wonderful news to me.
>>> 
>>> Hope it’s true.
>>> 
>>> Best
>>> Dana
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk at x-query.com <mailto:talk at x-query.com>
>> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150508/106e274a/attachment.html>