- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:18:26 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 4/04/2017 23:50, Irene Polikoff wrote: > Do we want to discuss recursion just to see if anything could or should be done? I have added a remark on Recursion into the agenda, although realistically I don't expect us to make any substantial changes to the document so late in the game. A conservative approach that would not break anything would be to give SHACL+recursion a proper name, i.e. a dialect, and tools can then specify which dialect they support. Tools that don't support recursion can then flag cases that they don't handle, while users would still be able to use recursion, legally. On a positive side, our definition of recursion has advantages over the one in ShEx, namely that it is possible to map SHACL to a set of static SPARQL queries that do not require callbacks like ShEx implementations do. This genuine trade-off motivated the current compromise. However I am curious whether this compromise will stand the market forces - people vote with their feet. Holger > > As for the appendix with the SHACL-for-SHACL, my understanding was that it should be “normative” - whatever this means. For example, does it mean that we should say “Shapes graph that doesn’t pass validation against SHACL-for-SHACL is ill formed”? > >> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> Agenda for this week's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.04.05 >> >> This may or may not be a short meeting as the only real topic is the SHACL-for-SHACL file which is holding up CR. >> >> Holger >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 5 April 2017 02:19:05 UTC