Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec]

Richard,

My expectation is that extensions are packaged in a seamless way so
you can use them without being exposed to their implementation.
However, that is not the same as being part of the high-level
language. My view is that the high-level language is a fixed set of
constraints defined by the WG.

-- Arthur

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:18 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/27
>
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> It looks like SHACL will be split into two parts:
>
> 1) A high-level “Core/Lite” language consisting of things like cardinality constraints, datatype constraints, conjunctions and disjunctions
> 2) An extension mechanism that relies on embedded expressions in a more expressive language
>
> Do constraints defined using 2) become part of the high-level language, that is, can they be used in nested expressions like conjunctions and disjunctions? Or do they stand “outside” the high-level language and are directly associated with classes/individuals/etc?
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:51:29 UTC