- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:46:12 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 9/28/2015 8:40, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Holger, > > OK, let's establish some precise terms to help make the spec clear. We > have been using the term "shapes graph" to refer to RDF merge of all > the shape files/documents/graphs that contain relevant definitions, > e.g. brought together by owl:import, etc. To be clear: the shapes graph typically does not contain the data graph. > What do we call a SHACL file/document/graph? Isn't this also the shapes graph then? > > btw, SHACL has Functions, Templates, inheritance, and other > programming language features. The spec gives an execution semantics > for SHACL documents. I think one could argue that is was a programming > language. The way that I see it is that SHACL can be used to declare data structures that can be used in different ways by different applications. Some applications may use shapes to build forms, others to build service input/output, others to test constraints, others for transformation tasks. It's just a data structure that can be queried, and we define the interpretation that these data structures should mean. If it were a programming language, then there would be exactly one way of using its code, i.e. by "executing" it. Holger
Received on Sunday, 27 September 2015 22:46:47 UTC