- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:45:22 +0000
- To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> On 21 Mar 2015, at 19:32, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> wrote: > > If SHACL implementations need to be based on SPARQL, then it will be very difficult to optimize SHACL processors given SPARQL's own complexity. While if we are able to define a SHACL high-level language with a set of constructs that can be implemented without SPARQL, then we are promoting the appearance of third party implementations that can be optimized to handle those problems. The SPARQL people have a ten-year head start in optimising their implementations, and their tech is built on a foundation that’s been around for forty years. I’d say using a SPARQL-based implementation will remain your best bet for an efficient SHACL implementation for quite a while. I have no reason to believe that non-SPARQL-based implementations will ever approach the performance of SPARQL-based implementations. Is there evidence that I am wrong? Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 13:45:50 UTC