- From: Iovka Boneva <iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:11:15 +0100
- CC: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Hi all, Le lun. 02 mars 2015 12:08:27 CET, Richard Cyganiak a écrit : > > Hi Jose, > >> >> On 1 Mar 2015, at 21:19, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> there is a perception that SPARQL is too low level (this was one of >> the conclusions from the RDF validation workshop). > > > > The conclusion from the workshop wasn’t that SPARQL is too “low > level”. The conclusion was that SPARQL queries cannot easily be > inspected and understood, either by human beings or by machines, to > uncover the constraints that are to be respected. > > A “macro” mechanism that wraps SPARQL queries into named parametrised > templates should fully address this particular concern Do not agree here. Named macros are not understandable by machines ... except if the human associates with the macro a formal description that algorithms can deal width. Macros might even be misunderstood by humans, even if the macro comes with a very carefully written description in English. Only languages with well defined formal semantics allow to express things w/o ambiguity. Iovka
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 13:12:05 UTC