- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 06:52:46 -0700
- To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 05/29/2015 06:41 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 05/29/2015 > 05:15:37 AM: > >> ... There will be SPARQL-based implementations of SHACL, and these >> implementations will include the ability to use the raw SPARQL >> construct of SHACL. If other implementations of SHACL do not implement >> this part of SHACL, then all that that means is that these >> implementations cannot avail themselves of this useful feature. Users >> can always switch to an implementation that does support this part of >> SHACL, and thus "SPARQL is always a fallback" for them. >> > > Except that not all users will be able to switch to such an > implementation. I believe you have in mind the common but use case where > a generic/vanilla rdf datastore is used. In other cases such as those I > know of where RDF is used as a thin layer on top of legacy software > SPARQL support isn't an option and switching implementation isn't > either. -- Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web > Technologies - IBM Software Group Why not? If it is possible to view the data as RDF, then should be possible to query it using SPARQL. peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVaG8uAAoJECjN6+QThfjzrO8IAJGAuBPN74v+0vi55MZBFYjx tCUBhEsftFwzm+PmpToUhMPPMa+qtNnnQvApzq3b53guj90rMUnZ4GL/WH+59H+s v8GIEpEiHkUaDY8e3sL9f0n3j38n2fBexYHzmM5KRzUIZll/EMDebaWq768EEuMk fQdeZTXdI5fuasuKtrK6Gr3I8zNASIXerW0IC2KBgvAbhh5vVn53WS2UDuYuwKGM gNagY0CVU/CxIfNrO0e8RaM9KO2wq1Sn8NisMXXSOWVaGheGxxTsa2NJsR4QI5hD 7kfTPcJ1asB0QIaNFZjz69qECab0fukZF1YFkwwtO+akf7oRGy5+HB3JXxonvyk= =pjOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 13:53:16 UTC