About
Somewhere between a theorem and a dance floor, you'll find me.
Who am I?
I'm Sattisvar Tandabany, consultant, engineer, and self-appointed defender of the word informatique.
Because yes, I cringe every time someone says "Computer Science." The field isn't about computers, any more than architecture is about hammers. In French, we got it right from the start: informatique, the science of information, of how it flows, transforms, and gives shape to things. The very word hides a gem: in-form, that which has no shape until it does.
I graduated from a prestigious French grande école with a background in mathematics and informatique. I've spent the past two decades turning complex systems into something understandable, sometimes for machines, sometimes for humans, occasionally for both at once.
Today I work as an independent consultant in computer science (I said it, don't @ me), helping organizations think clearly about their systems, their data, and their decisions.
What I do
I work at the intersection of AI, semantics, and knowledge graphs, fields that are, at their core, about one thing: meaning.
My consulting practice is built around a simple but stubborn idea:
Most organizations drown in data while thirsting for wisdom. I help them navigate that chain, through knowledge graph design, semantic modelling, and AI systems that don't just process information but understand it (or come close enough to be useful).
I also build the tools I wish existed. I designed and implemented Dolfin, a declarative language for modelling knowledge: you name the concepts of a domain, how they relate, what constraints hold, and what can be derived, and you get an ontology that a domain expert, a developer, and a data architect can all read from the same file. It is deliberately storage-agnostic, it says what your data means and leaves the where and how to whatever database you happen to be stuck with. On top of it I built Agrafe, a suite of web applications that turn those models into working systems.
Writing a language is the most honest way to find out what you actually believe about meaning. Every syntactic choice is an ontological commitment you can no longer hand-wave.
I have a soft spot for problems where mathematics and real-world messiness collide. Bonus points if there's an elegant solution hiding underneath.
What I care about
I'm fairly easy-going. Except when I'm not.
When I spot injustice (in a process, a decision, a system) I become annoyingly persistent. I don't let things slide. It's not a flaw, it's a feature. (Okay, sometimes it's a flaw.)
I believe in rigor without rigidity, precision without pedantry, and humor as a legitimate way to understand the world. A good pun is worth a thousand bullet points.
Off the clock
I used to dance, tango for the depth, lindy hop for the joy. Tango taught me something I carry everywhere: you don't lead, you propose. Then you listen. Then you follow where your partner goes, where the music curls. Be ready to be surprised.
I love playing with language, the shape of ideas inside sentences, the moment a pun lands exactly right. Etymology is just archaeology for curious minds.
Not as a job. As a way of seeing. There's something deeply satisfying about a proof, the moment when a messy question becomes a clean inevitability.
If you've read this far, you probably already have something interesting to say. Feel free to reach out.