- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:27:56 +0100
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Holger, You're right. There wasn't really any alternative, given that currently there is no other W3C-recommended technology that can be used for RDF validation. SPARQL has turned out to be a reasonably good fit for this particular use case. The Data Cube experience has left me thinking that a W3C-recommended RDF validation technology should have SPARQL semantics, but that a more compact and idiomatic syntax may be beneficial. There was no attempt to write these constraints in closed-world OWL at the time, because that's not a W3C standard, but it would be interesting to see if/how the constraints could be expressed that way. Best, Richard > On 6 Aug 2014, at 08:23, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > To those who are critical of using SPARQL as a way of expressing constraints, or as a way of writing specifications, please take a look at > > http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/#wf-rules > > The Data Cube Vocabulary is a W3C Recommendation that defines its constraints in SPARQL. This is instantly executable. > > HTH > Holger > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2014 09:28:22 UTC