Grammar + undefined behavior. It’s like saying ANSI C is a specification. It looks like a specification and quacks like a specification but compare it to a quality specification and you are looking into that void Badiou warned you about.
This is what a specification for a query language should look like
It is a little terse and not the easiest read but everything you need to know to write SPARQL or implement a SPARQL engine is in there. It's short.
(Now I would say that SPARQL needs to extend the algebra to deal with ordered collections, but that's what is nice about SPARQL being so well specified. If somebody wants to add a feature to SPARQL it is completely straightforward to amend the algebra AND the grammar, often you don't have to mess with the grammar and the use of namespaces means anybody can add anything.)
The GraphQL 'spec' on the other hand is like the singularity of a black hole... It's a place where computer science breaks down.
This is what a specification for a query language should look like
https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/
It is a little terse and not the easiest read but everything you need to know to write SPARQL or implement a SPARQL engine is in there. It's short.
(Now I would say that SPARQL needs to extend the algebra to deal with ordered collections, but that's what is nice about SPARQL being so well specified. If somebody wants to add a feature to SPARQL it is completely straightforward to amend the algebra AND the grammar, often you don't have to mess with the grammar and the use of namespaces means anybody can add anything.)
The GraphQL 'spec' on the other hand is like the singularity of a black hole... It's a place where computer science breaks down.