- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 07:26:13 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/12/2015 05:01 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > One of the main selling points of RDF technology has always been the > fact that instance and schema are represented uniformly. RDF Schema and > OWL class definitions are instances (of metaclasses) themselves. This > means that such data can not only be stored and shared together, but also > be queried uniformly. In general, SPARQL queries can freely walk between > meta-levels. > > Many other formalisms such as XML and SQL databases have a stricter > separation between those levels. If we agree on a similarly strict > separation by making it impossible to query the shapes graph from the > instances graph (and vice versa), then we may throw away a unique > advantage that RDF technology has. I am generally not in favor of > selecting the lowest common denominator for all use cases, only because > certain cases may not have the best performance. If the working group followed this advice, then all SHACL constructs would have to be representable as RDF triples, i.e., it would not be possible to use SPARQL syntax in SHACL. This does not seem to me to be a good way to proceed, unless SHACL turns into something completely different. peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVK9IFAAoJECjN6+QThfjzkLcH/if9bQ3SM7+tX6JY5FCunV7B Ysj8zeucEwNixKkPmoTqwZ6QCol4cGW+9YfmreKtHqImzMK7vKKHma6kPi7HShbB WOck59riAxXHDUrStKUu754lBeARJr9m+QXUgcMrDHsmeAI5Hl5doctK1x50EjrJ moMzX3jxb6Z/cfoib4CI1k+at0fJQXJBuJSmxnhKd4mHufpfQuweWRjHaLKL8MhM tbHGf1W6gFaLdewZRwBR3qXrf3UyADlAL9veV06pI7lL+izk7l6NbrN3chpBq8s8 xZz12JnctuUncNjA8Q8g5+R5PrXtn6Xnv8Gu0wUZ/Xu6T/mo3Yk/Vj7erXE9dfY= =lXLM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 14:26:51 UTC