Re: Role of SPARQL

* Holger Knublauch <> [2014-11-22 06:37+1000]
> Whatever language syntax is decided, some interoperable mechanism
> needs to be found to perform the actual queries against a dataset.
> These queries can be quite complex graph patterns. SPARQL is an
> obvious choice here.
> Stardog ICV compiles to SPARQL. ShEx has a SPARQL mapping. Resource
> Shapes is a subset of ShEx. SPIN executes as SPARQL. RDFUnit does.
> So I am wondering whether anybody disagrees on this topic at all,
> and whether we can use this opportunity to narrow down the space of
> open issues.

Note that there is a leap between "compiles to SPARQL" and "defined as
SPARQL queries". The former is a pragmatic way to make your schema
useful on more infrastructure; the latter is a question of how
implementors, researchers, optimizers etc. will be able to understand
and work with the definition.

> The resolution could be that we make it a requirement for any
> solution that it needs to be executable with SPARQL. This topic is
> separate from the surface syntax.
> I am just trying to be pragmatic.
> Thanks,
> Holger
> On 11/22/14, 3:23 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> >Is this something we can resolve without knowing which technology
> >we are going to use though?
> >--
> >Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
> >Standards - IBM Software Group
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Holger Knublauch <>
> >To:
> >Date: 11/20/2014 03:22 PM
> >Subject: Role of SPARQL
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >I think we should raise an issue to determine the role of SPARQL in this
> >stack. One of the reasons why I believe this is an important direction
> >is that it will impact ISSUE-1 (inferencing). For example, see the
> >unresolved feature request brought to our attention by Axel:
> >
> >
> >
> >The interaction is that if SPARQL (in general) had a syntax to specify
> >entailment regimes, and Shapes are based on SPARQL, then the topic of
> >inferencing may become a non-issue from a Shapes perspective - it would
> >be solved in the lower parts of the stack.
> >
> >From what I can guess by listening to previous discussions, many people
> >here are in favor of defining Shapes with SPARQL semantics, at least
> >with a mapping/compilation to SPARQL, so I believe this is a topic that
> >we should formally discuss and resolve.
> >
> >Holger
> >
> >
> >


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Monday, 24 November 2014 13:00:00 UTC