- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 13:49:40 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would like to see the core of a proposal for something that would support "SHACL minus SPARQL" as well as the core of a proposal for "SHACL plus SPARQL". I think that I could fairly easily put together a proposal for most of the former, but I am puzzled as to how to handle recursion and closure, so I would like to see how a proponent of this approach would handle recursion or closure. My recent proposal is, I think, along the line of "SHACL minus SPARQL", but it supports neither recursion nor closure. I'm less certain how the "SHACL plus SPARQL" would work. It seems to me that a vital part of "SHACL plus SPARQL" would be a proof that the core formalism is equivalent to some subset of SPARQL. If this is the case, then why not turn things around and make SPARQL the spec and have the other semantics proved equivalent to SPARQL constructs? I am also puzzled as to how recursion and closure can be handled in this approach. peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU9ix0AAoJECjN6+QThfjzMxAH/iZ2Tl0XtrAPqxWBB6OhRIQ+ IdebmmfrLf4wZQH2kMZkAydoM9jAKFQWhqFy7znSelOHcbpMHP56uvq1fzVZloQA nHa4rgDTC6B0nqJhpreVbO0znOArXzYmYZdBewdg1z/JX8cYr65pnI/o1bd1PgS6 Uugf10l7Rsknomto76Th9JHPZg67IL+mSJ4POqxvYwzn88NDHrZyJ7p6mnzwVpQj LjrKnZ6TsJMAd2VGRpR6b5zGy1+tSxMSZpldqcGKl9dfy4aTmzxs0l2faZ77Jerg UZnO+wp+XsiAD/dHqqgDMhYtA+XyfF43MQYHImpSyCFHPcpQ/0W1muceiwESxTA= =uY+4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 21:50:12 UTC