RE: Role of SPARQL

Yes, without a doubt - defining semantics will be a work item and a deliverable.

What I meant by 'requiring work' (and I have used your words) is that before the semantics of constraints could be defined one would need to do some work on extending/enhancing/modifying (whatever is more precise) semantics of OWL or RDF. So, there would be two pieces of work.

Please correct if I misunderstood you.

Irene

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2014 3:26 PM
To: Irene Polikoff; 'Dean Allemang'; 'Holger Knublauch'
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Role of SPARQL

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 20:50:57 UTC