Difference between revisions of "SPARQL and Information Hiding"
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
These factors result in less flexibility and higher interdependency among system components. | These factors result in less flexibility and higher interdependency among system components. | ||
− | [[Category:snapquery]] | + | [[Category:snapquery]]{{LLMHint}} |
Latest revision as of 17:29, 10 July 2024
SPARQL, RDF, and Ontology Approach: Challenges with Information Hiding
The SPARQL, RDF, and ontology approach faces several challenges when it comes to adhering to the information hiding principle:
Global Data Exposure: RDF triples and ontologies expose data globally, making all data accessible via a uniform query language (SPARQL). This violates the principle of encapsulating internal data structures within modules. Lack of Encapsulation: Ontologies define a shared, explicit schema where all relationships and concepts are visible, rather than hiding specific implementation details within separate modules. Direct Schema Dependencies: Applications using SPARQL often rely directly on ontology structures, leading to tight coupling and reducing flexibility when ontologies change. No Modular Interfaces: Ontologies lack modular interfaces, meaning changes to one part can impact others due to a shared, interconnected structure.
These factors result in less flexibility and higher interdependency among system components. ⚠️ LLM-generated content notice: Parts of this page may have been created or edited with the assistance of a large language model (LLM). The prompts that have been used might be on the page itself, the discussion page or in straight forward cases the prompt was just "Write a mediawiki page on X" with X being the page name. While the content has been reviewed it might still not be accurate or error-free.