- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:14:55 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/21/2014 16:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. I fully agree but did not say that we should decide on any technology before doing use cases. I only stated that this decision can hopefully be done early in the process - once the use cases are collected and analyzed. Without any grounding, future decisions become very hard to make. For example the group could decide to first develop a completely new language, but this would have flow-on effects to the design of the higher-level language for average end users and overall lead to a delay in the deliverables. If there was an agreement that SPARQL's expressivity is a good match for the catalog of requirements, then we can work on the delta that makes SPARQL as useable as possible for our scenarios. Holger > > 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 07:18:26 UTC