RE: Role of SPARQL

< Perhaps there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs to be fixed so a parallel solution has to be developed.>

 

Peter, are you already aware of anything wrong with SPARQL algebra or is this a plan B in case it is discovered that there is something wrong with SPARQL algebra?

 

So, the options for defining semantics of constraints so far are:

 

1.       SPARQL

2.       OWL+SWRL semantics - would require work on adding features of SWRL - either SWRL itself or expressions that use SWRL functions. And, I suppose, would require defining the new, closed word OWL semantics.

3.       RDF semantics - would require work similar to the one above for using OWL semantics

4.       Algebra on RDF graphs and datasets - an alternative to using SPARQL in case there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs to be fixed 

5.       Z semantics

 

Does anyone have another option they are wanting to be considered?

 

Irene

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 8:43 AM
To: Irene Polikoff; 'Dean Allemang'; 'Holger Knublauch'
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Role of SPARQL

 

One option for extending the constraint power of an OWL solution would be to add some features from SWRL.  This could either be SWRL itself or expressions that use SWRL functions.

 

I wasn't advocating the use of Z, just pointing out that it could be an option.

 

Basing a solution on the RDF semantics would require work similar to a solution based on the OWL semantics.

 

A solution using an algebra on RDF graphs and datasets might look very much like SPARQL.  Perhaps there is something wrong with the SPARQL algebra that needs to be fixed so a parallel solution has to be developed.

 

My email wasn't advocating any particular position, just pointing out that there are potential alternatives to SPARQL.

 

peter

 

 

 

On 11/24/2014 04:20 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:

> Dean,

> 

> Your messages are indeed getting through.

> 

> It seems to me that another issue with using OWL to do the kind of 

> definitions you are describing is that it can’t (to my knowledge) 

> cover a set a fairly common constraints such as start date must be 

> before the end date. I presuming here that this category of 

> constraints is accepted as a requirement. I believe Peter suggested 

> addressing this issue by using SWRL, so this option would be

> OWL+SWRL. Is this correct?

> 

> Peter identified a couple of other options:

> 

> ·Z – I don’t think this is a viable idea as it introduces a new 

> language when there are already good options within the RDF stack

> 

> ·RDF semantics – can this work? And how?

> 

> ·Algebra on RDF graphs and datasets – can this work? And how?

> 

> Irene

>