Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-32 as done

I don't think that we've actually reached full agreement on this, but 
perhaps this issue needs to be re-worded. First, this talks about a 
high-level language, and I don't think that's the same as "core." In 
fact, I'm not at all sure where the high level language fits into SHACL 
at the moment -- there is a language being developed in the current 
spec, but it doesn't seem to me to be the high level language that we've 
discussed.

And while there seems to be agreement that SHACL has a core, in most 
discussions it is clear that we do not have a shared definition of what 
defines that core nor what defines NOT core.

Maybe we first need to decide what the issue is (or issues are), and if 
this one represents it/them, or should be deleted and replaced with more 
precise statements.

kc

On 7/27/15 4:52 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I believe we have answered the questions raised by ISSUE 32 [1] already
> when we adopted the current draft. SHACL consists of a core language
> plus one or more extension languages. SPARQL is one of those extension
> languages, and we decided to try to use SPARQL as much as possible to
> define the Core.
>
> Holger
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/32
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 14:58:24 UTC