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

Re: ShEx relation to SPIN/OWL

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:12:02 +1000
Message-ID: <53C455B2.6000004@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 7/14/14, 11:05 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger,
>
> The following comments are not specifically about the merits of ShEx
> versus SPIN even thought that is the subject of this thread.
>
> I believe we do need a high level constraint checking language that has at
> least the following characteristics:
>
> 1. We need a high-level vocabulary for the most common types of
> constraint, e.g. occurrence, domain, range, etc. SPARQL is too low level,
> i.e. you can't tell what an arbitrary SPARQL query is doing. However,
> these high-level constraints SHOULD be given a precise semantics in terms
> of some other well-specified language. I believe SPARQL is the natural
> choice for defining the semantics of high-level constraints.
>
> 2. Constraints SHOULD NOT only be attached to vocabularies, ontologies, or
> models. Constraints SHOULD be associated with RDF documents, RDF datasets
> or RDF REST APIs (to define the request/response contract). The acid test
> here is if I can define constraints on a document that is entirely
> composed of terms defined in other vocabularies, e.g. FOAF, Dublin Core,
> OSLC, ....
>
> Does SPIN satisfy these two requirements? The Resource Shape submission
> does.

SPIN satisfies those two requirements.

And many more requirements. Who says that the two requirements above are 
the most important ones? It would be trivial to form a working group 
that has an agenda that ShEX would not stand a chance of fulfilling. Who 
is defining these things?

Holger
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 22:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC