- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 10:59:34 +0000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi all, Here are a few straw-man proposals. I’m submitting them in the hope of establishing a bit of firm ground around the various fault lines within the group. Maybe the Chair could consider putting them to the vote in a future call. Until the Chair does something official, please consider this a simple opinion poll. It would be very helpful to hear some +1/0/-1 opinions, especially but not only from those who have so far kept out of the SPARQL megathread. (The proposals are not different answers to the same question. They are all independent. You could agree with all four, or disagree with all four.) PROPOSAL 1: At least one profile of SHACL shall support the definition of constraints using embedded SPARQL queries. PROPOSAL 2: At least one profile of SHACL shall exclude support for the definition of constraints using embedded SPARQL queries. PROPOSAL 3: All higher-level language constructs of SHACL shall have normative definitions in SPARQL, except where this is not possible. PROPOSAL 4: At least one profile of SHACL shall support the definition of new higher-level language constructs using embedded SPARQL queries. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 10:59:57 UTC