[xquery-talk] MarkLogic using JSONiq for processing JSON ?
adam.retter at googlemail.com
Sat May 9 17:03:36 PDT 2015
I am not sure if I need to, but I feel that I might need to defend
myself from your latest email.
Let me be clear, I personally wanted to participate in the XQuery WG.
I was not asked to do it by anyone in the eXist project and neither
did I do it to advance the eXist project. My sole purpose at the time
for enquiring about how I might join without working for a member
organisation of the W3C was because I felt that open source community
implementations of XQuery were unrepresented within the working group.
I felt that the average user of XQuery, that could not afford an
expensive implementation should also be represented within the WG.
I was lucky to be invited to join the WG and I am thankful for that.
Subsequently, I have paid out of my own personal pocket for every WG
meeting I have attended. I can only attend those in Europe as the
others further afield are beyond my means, and I have not always been
able to attend all in Europe due to cost. I work on an Open Source
project, almost all of the work I do is unfunded and I do it in my
evenings and weekends because it is interesting and I enjoy
contributing to the community. I did email the FLWOR Foundation about
possible funding on more than one occasion in the past but never
received a response from you. I have never been paid in any way for my
WG efforts or reimbursed any of my costs by any organisation (that
includes eXist Solutions).
What I am trying to say, is that I am not part of the WG to achieve
some sort of eXist-db domination plan, or for any sort of
machiavellian scheme. I attend the WG meetings because I genuinely
want to improve the language for its users, and for me that is more
important than what eXist, BaseX, MarkLogic, IBM, Oracle or any other
implementation wants. I also teach several XQuery courses each year
entirely free of charge, and again I fund this out of my own pocket,
my goal as always is to help the community. I think that XQuery is a
beautiful language that brings a great deal of freedom to its users.
I understand that you are unhappy with the design of XQuery 3.1, and I
am sorry to hear that; I know that you were deeply instrumental in the
original design of XQuery and spent many years working on the XQuery
All the best. Adam.
On 10 May 2015 at 00:41, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com> wrote:
> Adam, Ghislain,
> Com’ on. Stop running around the bush. I hate hypocrisy in technology.
> Reading your emails made me feel back in the communist era, with the perfect usage of a perfect wooden language.
> Since when “working well together” and “listening to each other” (what a wonderful world !!!!)…..: guaranteed a good technical result !???
> (Maybe they should have voted to see if Galileo was right or not …. wait, actually they DID…. OUPS.)
> Since when this guaranteed any logical result, and any good, usable tool for an industry !?
> (Web services would be the first thing that would jump to my mind as a graceful design of a “nice" community that all listened to each other
> … as a nightmare equivalent to XQuery 3.1)
> More often then not, such a “nice process” ends up in a horrible technical compromise which is good for no-one, and gets abandoned
> by industry VERY, VERY soon.
> You both prove my point: the design of XQuery 3.1 was done to “help” selfishly and with a very short term vision two-three companies (Saxon, Exist, MarkLogic), and with complete
> disregard to the big picture of the needs of querying and processing semi-structured data in the industry (which includes both XML and JSON).
> As for the choice between solving:
> (a) XSLT maps and arrays (estimated # use cases in the Ks, includes all three eXist, Saxon and MarkLogic) and
> (b) querying JSON (downloads of Mongo+Cassandra+Cloudera+Spark+Couch+… in the tens of millions of downloads…)
> (let alone the comparison in the total sales number…)
> ……...very intelligently, XQuery 3.1 decided to totally ignore the millions of use cases of Cassandra+Mongo+Cloudera+…., and “serve” Saxon and eXist,
> and antagonize all those millions of use cases that need JSON query processing.
> Thanks for your “contribution" to the industry.
>> On May 8, 2015, at 4:21 AM, Adam Retter <adam.retter at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> No, all the arguments were all technical
>>> Getting agreement on all these points was a very lengthy process with much heated argument. Although the decisions made were not always the ones I personally advocated, I think the final language works well.
>> Absolutely! Whilst I am more of an occasional frequenter and
>> contributor to the XQuery WG, having seen the level of collaborative
>> work and perseverance that that has gone into adding Maps and Arrays
>> to XQuery, I can say that I am impressed.
>> From my perspective, it was a difficult process, but everyone worked
>> hard together and the technical arguments were always foremost. Whilst
>> working under the constraints of backwards compatibility and creating
>> a cohesive data model and language, I think the result speaks for
>> itself. Certainly many of eXist's users are very happy with the new
>> Maps and Arrays work in XQuery 3.1 and we frequently receive positive
>> feedback on this.
>> Adam Retter
>> skype: adam.retter
>> tweet: adamretter
More information about the talk