[07:19:21] <haugh>	 @grin Damnit, I was hoping I was wrong
[07:19:35] <haugh>	 <grin[m]> "haugh: fwiw I agree. :-)" <- Damnit, I was hoping I was wrong
[07:53:59] <grin[m]>	 Well we still could be wrong. 😁 But it's no wonder we needed a GUI for building queries... 
[07:53:59] <grin[m]>	 It's like "everything can be done in assembly but there's s reason we don't code everything in it"
[08:37:24] <eierschalensollb>	 my non-programmer experience was that SPARQL is much less intuitive than SQL (though I never learnt either of them specifically)
[08:37:43] <eierschalensollb>	 haugh
[10:16:47] <haugh>	 Exactly
[17:13:33] <Harzilein>	 hi
[17:14:44] <two[m]>	 hi
[17:24:22] <two[m]>	 hi
[17:24:26] <two[m]>	 how do i make an edit?
[18:47:21] <JAA>	 I don't have much experience with SPARQL yet, but I agree that I find SQL much more intuitive. (Then again, I have been using SQL for many years, so...)
[18:51:53] <two[m]>	 i don't have a lot of sql experience, and i find sparql much more intuitive.
[22:00:04] <eierschalensollb>	 I've started using both around the same time and still have no idea how SPARQL actually works
[22:21:43] <Harzilein>	 i think the only times i managed to come up with valid sparql was letting wdq (https://metacpan.org/dist/App-wdq) print out what it would use from my command line arguments. then _slight_ successes with binding or setting to "don't care" things.
[22:22:30] <Harzilein>	 but i think there was some way that at least for _interpreting the output_ i would get natural language names/descriptions/property names.