> I just want to have the semantics of my software platform expressed in
> linked data and SPARQL seems to be a way to do that.
Well, sort of. {grin} SPARQL is about RDF: graphs and tuples. You can use
SPARQL to operate over data without a single HTTP URI in it, and while you
would certainly be dealing in RDF, I don't think you could say you were dealing
in Linked Data. Linked Data is as much about choosing identifiers and
distributing knowledge bases as anything else.
Using SPARQL makes sense as part of an API that deals in RDF, but if you are
specifically interested in Linked Data, I would think you might want to start
with something like the Linked Data Platform:
https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp
rather than SPARQL.
I can tell you that the query you described may be easy for you to read, but it
will be pretty opaque to other SPARQL users who are not familiar with your
system. It seems basically to be an encoding of your service design in SPARQL
syntax.
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
> On Aug 21, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Simon Schäfer <m...@antoras.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 19:34:10 +0200 A. Soroka <aj...@virginia.edu> wrote
> ----
>> Just for information, you might want to look at SSWAP:
>>
>> http://sswap.info/
>> http://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-10-309
>>
>> They used OWL to assemble web services, and you might find useful ideas
>> there.
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look.
>>
>> Using SPARQL this way seems like an awful lot of overhead. Is there
>> something particular about your data or services that lends interest to
>> using SPARQL in particular?
>
> Not sure where the overhead is in your eyes. On the one side SPARQL queries
> can be generated if one doesn't want to write them manually and on the other
> side it is just one query that is easy to read in my eyes. I don't have any
> particular need for SPARQL. I just want to have the semantics of my software
> platform expressed in linked data and SPARQL seems to be a way to do that.
>
