- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:26:13 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, 'Dean Allemang' <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, 'Holger Knublauch' <holger@topquadrant.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

I would say that each solution for defining semantics requires work, unless the solution is to use SPARQL itself as the complete solution. No proposal that I have seen is like this. peter On 11/25/2014 11:27 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > < 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 > > > >

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 20:26:49 UTC