[Crm-sig] problem of formulating queries is SPARQL it has transferred the old relational paradigm onto the graph structure?
marco.neumann at gmail.com
Thu May 24 12:58:44 EEST 2012
I am certainly in favor of a discussion and the development of easy to
use query forms but that said I am currently equally in favor of
SPARQL to query RDF data stores.
Higher level abstractions, BTW any app on top of SPARQL that is, are
highly desirable. But knowing our "clients" in cultural heritage
organizations an unqualified statement such as the one made above in
the paper will further to hamper adoption, I would think. It's like
critizing SPARQL as the wrong choice for FOL reasoning tasks which are
not it's primary intended use case. Though SPARQL update is actually a
very efficient tool to approximate the semantics of such goals.
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Dominic Oldman
<DOLDMAN at thebritishmuseum.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi Marco,
> As Sebastian says, we have to use SPARQL. However, just because it is
> the W3C standard doesn't mean you can't criticise it. However, just like
> with SQL we are all looking at ways to help museum practitioners (does
> this include our curators undertaking digital research projects) explore
> data effectively, transparently and with reproducibility, and making use
> of the technology with something additional to the SPARQL Endpoint (this
> lack of additional tools perhaps explaining lack of take up).
> The ICOM statement,
> "Alternative Proposal for an ICOM-CIDOC Resolution on URIs for Museum
> Objects / Linked Open Data", is more high level statement and the
> statement that we are currently being asked to agree. It doesn't mention
> Dominic Oldman
> Deputy Head of IS
> IS Development Manager
> ResearchSpace Principal Investigator
> British Museum
> +44 (0)20 73238796
> +44 (0)7980 865309
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]
> On Behalf Of Marco Neumann
> Sent: 24 May 2012 10:04
> To: crm-sig
> Subject: [Crm-sig] problem of formulating queries is SPARQL it has
> transferred the old relational paradigm onto the graph structure?
> Hi Martin et al
> I have just learned about this submission to Museums and the Web. The
> authors make the following statement:
> "Last but not least, another problem of formulating queries is SPARQL
> (SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language). Most favored by information
> technology (IT) experts, it has transferred the old relational
> paradigm onto the graph structure of the Semantic Web, creating an
> incredibly complex system, even for specialists. In our applications,
> no IT expert was able to verify that a SPARQL query of the kind we
> present in this paper will yield the results intended by a domain
> expert simply by reading it." *
> A New Framework for Querying Semantic Networks - Museums and the Web
> I find this to be a misleading statement by the authors since SPARQL
> is the recommendation by W3C to query RDF data. Would you not
> recommend SPARQL to museum practitioners to query RDF data?
> Marco Neumann
> Join us at SemTech Biz in San Francisco June 3-7 2012 and save 15%
> with the lotico community discount code 'STMN'
> Crm-sig mailing list
> Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Join us at SemTech Biz in San Francisco June 3-7 2012 and save 15%
with the lotico community discount code 'STMN'
More information about the Crm-sig