- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:56:52 -0400
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
1. +1 2. +1 3. +0 4. +1 On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > 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 Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:57:37 UTC