Re: Organizing the requirements

In my honest opinion, we need to look at both the aspects of validation and
meta-data for describing the RDF document.  SPARQL  maybe good for
expressing validation aspects - but I am not sure how useable it is for
describing RDF documents. From an application that is consuming RDF
documents - say for the purpose of displaying it in an Userr Interface, it
would be difficult to analyze SPARQL constraints to infer the shape of the
document.

Anamitra



From:	Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:	public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org,
Date:	10/21/2014 03:23 AM
Subject:	Re: Organizing the requirements



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.
>>