- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 08:02:15 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi Karen, I agree with your general sentiment. But I did not reject paths; I did suggest them as requirement myself [1,2]. Paths are already covered by SPARQL. So the only question here was whether paths should be part of the high-level language, in addition to SPARQL. Holger [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Transitive_Traversal_of_Properties [2] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Properties_Used_in_Inverse_Direction On 4/9/2015 7:35, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 4/8/15 1:03 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> I am against the splitting of documents if this risks a situation in >> which the Core gets standardized while the SPARQL bits do not get >> standardized. Only in that situation my point is that the SHACL core >> language alone would be a step backwards in the evolution of the >> semantic web space, because it will cause a fragmentation of the market >> without adding much that OWL didn't already have. > > I think this depends on how we define core. I think of core as being > the functions that will serve the highest percentage of needs - the > famed 80% of uses. I don't think that means that those needs are > simpler or have a simpler solution or do not use SPARQL. > > This means that we should develop standard solutions to that 80% if we > can. I prefer that we identify that core and get clarity on it before > rejecting features (as in the discussion of paths) for implementation > reasons. That doesn't mean that everything we would like to have as > core will be provided in the standard; I just think that we musn't > leap into implementation questions before we settle the "what do we > want" question -- do the "what" then the "how", then iterate until we > have the best possible solution. > > kc >
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 22:03:40 UTC