Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>  On 3/3/2015 14:59, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why should this group take on such undertaking instead of reusing already
>> existing language produced by W3C?
>>
>
>  Because "SPARQL queries cannot easily be inspected and understood,
> either by human beings or by machines, to uncover the constraints that are
> to be respected". [1]
>
>
> Jose, the sentence following your excerpt above is
>
> "The term 'shape' emerged as a popular label for these constraints."
>
> I believe this clarifies that the group was not contrasting SPARQL with
> something like XPath,
>

Not at all...why do you say that?

I think I have already clarified what subset of XPath I was talking about
and for what purpose.


> but rather SPARQL versus the high-level vocabulary of sh:minCount and
> sh:valueType. A new language such as a yet-to-be-defined variant of XPath
> or a yet-to-be-defined subset of SPARQL's FILTER expressions would arguably
> have the same basic characteristics as SPARQL itself.
>

No, because that subset of XPath (or SPARQL expressions as Richard said)
can be used for built-in functions and operations and has a much simpler
semantics that we can leverage on than the full SPARQL language with BGPs,
UNIONs, OPTIONALs, etc.

Best regards, Jose Labra

>
>
> Holger
>
>


-- 
-- Jose Labra