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

Semantic Web Languages Architecture diagram

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 11:16:59 +1000
Message-ID: <53D9990B.8040408@topquadrant.com>
To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Here is a diagram draft illustrating the dependencies among various 
Semantic Web languages, as I see them:

     https://twitter.com/HolgerKnublauch/statuses/494648159931346944

The stacking of boxes on top of each other means "uses features of". 
Please don't get caught up in details. The points that I am trying to 
make are:

- There can be multiple "schema" languages for the same RDF models

- Different languages have different design goals (e.g. OWL was mainly 
created for classification tasks)

- All these languages can live alongside with each other without 
breaking each others interpretations, for example via separate import 
mechanisms (owl:imports, spin:imports, ic:imports). A SPIN model can 
ignore OWL constructs, but SPARQL queries can also be executed on top of 
graphs that have OWL inferencing activated. Likewise, OWL models can 
ignore spin:constraint definitions.

To me one of the important things is to ensure that classes, properties 
and instances can be reused. The concept of "Classes" is quite basic, 
established and successful, and is therefore a good foundation for 
Shapes too.

And yes, I am fully aware that there are other languages that did not 
make it into this diagram. I just wanted to focus on the comparison 
between OWL and Shapes+SPIN and make clear that this is not an either-or 
discussion. There is plenty of space for both approaches, and indeed 
both "communities" can benefit from each other when the Semantic Web 
grows as a whole.

Regards,
Holger
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2014 01:18:29 UTC

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