- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:30:49 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I would not say that ShEx is more expressive that SPARQL. ShEx has some things that are not obviously in SPARQL (recursion and closure), but SPARQL has some things that are not in ShEx (datasets, etc.). I do agree that a concise syntax is nice. I would go further and say that it is nearly impossible to have a nice RDF-encoded syntax. peter On 04/29/2015 07:15 AM, David Booth wrote: > It seems like there are two major camps in the RDF Shapes WG: (a) those > who want a SPARQL/SPIN-friendly language; and (b) those who want a more > expressive and concise language like ShEx. Has the WG considered > standardizing a language with two standard dialects, such as was done > with OWL? > > It seems to me that if there is a significant number of people who would > (continue to) use ShEx -- either because of its additional expressivity > or its conciseness -- even if the Shapes WG decided to standardize a more > limited and verbose SPARQL/SPIN-like language, then that is clear > evidence that a ShEx-like language *should* be standardized, perhaps in > *addition* to standardizing a SPARQL/SPIN-friendly subset of ShEx, as a > standard dialect. > > David Booth > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVQVuZAAoJECjN6+QThfjzZtoH/jt2oPAx3pHziFq/Sy0FHWCc WNZoxJTEx6VK2Mt3LFNlo5Fsm1CJSUvog7LaCdsf46vKuTF4sJ8H7SalV+2bf9gw eGSyldhWc/TnPXGeL4/2tOzjGSm0ho/cCcEbuIJ1a92dgQueZHKOwZLZIyA3uqv0 wUEf1h1iskwJC+czFottZ0lgddJB9HB4bpajdMLPdsNjiy7jV5HHYFe9RbPXkVPU NJPm+UWkVNaaUiv/EPECGauIZ4Eu1XLKp1yXD62Z4tKP2rtbnQhCA5ZP/OBR698l Ozeb1df1WCXC1+2sLFj91TvrgFCo+U/xHEXJC7yUQHQSFyrNOKlMC1ghtd7X0Q0= =Bixw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 22:31:18 UTC