Re: differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec

Peter,

Another difference appears to be that your specification doesn’t support the declaration of constraint macros, that is, user-defined SPARQL shapes where free variables may be bound to properties of the constraint when the shape is used in a constraint.

Richard


> On 5 Mar 2015, at 21:56, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Significant differences between my SHACL specification (now at
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-sparql) and the specification
> at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> 
> 
> My specification
> 
> - - has a single execution engine - SPARQL - instead of multiple exeuction
>  engines
> 
> - - has a single semantics - translation to SPARQL - instead of potentially
>  multiple semantics
> 
> - - is completely implementable by first translating to SPARQL and then
>  running the SPARQL queries under the RDFS entailment regime, instead of
>  requiring significant extensions to SPARQL
> 
> - - is centered around constraints and shapes instead of being centered around
>  classes and nodes
> 
> - - does not have (self-)recursion
> 
> - - does not have any OO features like private, or abstract, or final, or
>  inheritance, or extends
> 
> - - has reporting based on SPARQL
>  - There is nothing to prevent post-processing, though.
> 
> - - has no functions
> 
> - - has no contexts
> 
> 
> peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NErAAoJECjN6+QThfjzp7oH/jwKk4qoqLvSK4Sa1qvDhhfT
> HnncGycBf4LSHM4DXfeMT8nG9CzMzd0mXLHx5Ubgwm7Ob974y3oXGJ+nPRRRHISo
> SjalB0RlLfnNEXD83fYeVrJ0cyTgcsf7QXiOBtpInpDZBgaX0uyRu90KPNyJCOV4
> d+sWGpAh8VY4f5vNmhELKwFfVxh8BfU41eJ6wYQvzMxwHupfI5VnkziEsuKQsjje
> Qrs+Ui0QgVs3ZZjrKy37c4WoqiLCj4fyKJSDFc1MR7whWtoZZZWqNcZdSxCp2HWv
> P+q0EwpDG0fYKq/B9V1YcGOZlYqYg6EOUQryDCPiks+RJTBTxgVCPikuMGH9w6E=
> =8C/J
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 22:32:46 UTC