Re: Hydra and Shapes

On 11/20/2014 3:04, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Also, this is something that OWL can do; after all, the properties are 
> still “properties” in the RDF sense, so everything that applies to RDF 
> also applies here. 

I guess this will need to be clarified some more. Yes, until now OWL and 
RDFS were the main vocabularies to represent something like 
"constraints". But as we all know, OWL and RDF Schema are really not 
designed for that purpose, but are rather languages to infer new triples 
under the open world assumption, not to constrain assertions in a closed 
world sense. The Shapes group will produce some vocabulary for closed 
world checking, and the interpretation of that vocab will arguably be 
much closer to what average developers would expect. So, while you may 
currently rely on OWL/RDFS due to lack of alternatives, I see Shapes as 
a better alternative to the Hydra/LDF use cases.

>>  From how I understand Ruben's work, it is probably only a matter of time before there is a SPARQL engine implemented in JavaScript
> Hey, hey, we have one ;-)
> Still working on some features, but test it here: http://client.linkeddatafragments.org/

This is great, and also thanks to Kingsley for the pointer in his email!

>
>> All these thoughts prompted me to sign up for this community to see if we can somehow join forces
>
> Here's my two cents:
>
>
> One interesting application of shapes is for the description of custom APIs.
> “Linked Data Fragments” is about *all* possible APIs to Linked Data; i.e.,:
> - a SPARQL endpoint offers Linked Data Fragments whose selector is a SPARQL query;
> - a data dump offers a Linked Data Fragment of the entire dataset;
> - a triple pattern fragments interface offers fragments whose selector is a triple pattern.
> And in between all those options, there are many more possible interfaces:
> http://www.slideshare.net/RubenVerborgh/querying-datasets-on-the-web-with-high-availability/45
>
> I imagine querying as a dialogue between a client and a server:
> - client: What do you have?
> - server: I offer this dataset as triple pattern fragments.
> - client: *splits the query it wants to solve in the available fragments*
>
> So basically, I expect to see interfaces that offer totally custom fragments,
> for instance, fragments that look like this:
>      { ?concept a skos:Concept; skos:broader ?other. }
> You could interpret the above as
> “an API call for broader concepts of the given concept”.
>
> And those APIs… we could describe them using shapes!

Yes absolutely.

Cheers,
Holger

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2014 03:20:13 UTC