- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:07:24 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I thought that there was this agreement to start from a technology-neutral beginning. Trying to determine the role of SPARQL before doing use case and requirements analysis does not seem to fit into this agreement. This would be true even if there were universal agreement that SPARQL had the right expressive power. peter On 10/15/2014 06:18 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: [I have removed the bulk of Holger's message to concentrate on this one particular point.] > > Pragmatically speaking, I believe we should aim at concluding on a key > question early on: the role of SPARQL versus any alternatives. Judging from > the discussions in the old mailing list, I believe many people agree that > SPARQL is the most suitable existing language in terms of expressivity. That's > because SPARQL is a general RDF pattern-matching language and covers the most > common operations with its arithmetic and string manipulation functions. I > don't really see alternatives. >
Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 07:07:56 UTC