- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:33:20 -0700
- 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