W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Proposed change to the charter, section 4. Deliverables, Recommendation Track

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:33:20 -0700
Message-ID: <53DE7260.2000607@gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
I do not support this approach at this time.  To me it looks too much like 
having two standards for the same thing.  I feel that the SPARQL-based 
approach and the model-checking approach (which is what OWL+CWA boils down to 
for RDF graphs) have quite a large overlap in their capabilities, even though 
they may look quite different technically.

It may be that I am wrong in this, of course, and that there are good reasons 
to split in this way.


peter


On 08/02/2014 11:21 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> A pragmatic proposal: I do believe there is consensus that this WG can
> potentially create some useful and relevant output that could lead to broader
> use cases for semantic web technology as a whole. There are several proposals
> on the table that are potentially complementary to each other. Assuming there
> are enough people who actually sign up for the work, why not produce multiple
> deliverables that cover more use cases?
>
> 1) Shapes + SPIN, with an explicit mandate to have semantics that are
> executable by SPARQL engines, from day one. The alternative would be ShEx and
> this could be figured out in the beginning of the WG. This deliverable would
> be like an extension to SPARQL.
>
> plus
>
> 2) OWL closed world semantics, so that existing OWL ontologies can be reused.
> This deliverable would basically be an "appendix" to the OWL 2 spec.
>
> This would allow the interest groups to stay on their home turf without
> blocking each other, because blocking each other would be the worst outcome of
> all. I see no technical difficulties with such as stack, because these
> technologies are complementary to each other: we use OWL closed world + SPIN
> all the time, and it works well in practice. In fact I believe both
> specifications have a good and stable starting point so that we could proceed
> with the process very swiftly.
>
> Peter, would this be an acceptable direction for you?
>
> Thanks,
> Holger
>
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 17:33:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC