Re: Role of SPARQL

On 11/26/2014 7:20, Axel Polleres wrote:
> My personal opinion is that as a rule language, we should take something as simple as a restricted form of:
>   { construct-template } IF { SPARQL-pattern}

I am open to the idea of additional syntactic variations of SPARQL. For 
example for SPIN functions, it may be valuable to have something like

GET ?x

to make clear that only one result variable is allowed and LIMIT 1.

However, any such extension increases the cost of adoption. By simply 
using CONSTRUCT and ASK people can easily switch between their existing 
SPARQL editor and their Turtle/JSON files.

> Note:
> 1) I think that we need a restricted form because there are potential non-termination issues
> 2) this is both simpler, but also more powerful (e.g. allowing SPARQL-aggregates in bodies) than SWRL, particularly, if you combine it with SPARQL's entailment regimes.
> 3) SPARQL is a standard. SWRL is not a W3C standard, but "only" a memeber submission.
> 4) we could also refer to RIF, which *IS* a standard, but has no readable syntax... so this is better, IMO. Also, note that RIF is not ideal as a basis, since it has datatype reasoning on board already in RIF Core, which is what you don't always want.



Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 00:16:25 UTC