Re: shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec]

Richard,

I am in favour of using precise natural language + SPARQL. This will
make the document readable by a larger audience, and also has the
benefit of being executable.

I am strongly opposed to any formalism that is itself not actually a
formal language with supporting tools. Good examples include:
BNF+ANTLR for grammars or fuzz+Z for model based specifications. In
the absense of tools, the so-called formalism are pseudo-formal.

-- Arthur

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:20 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-29 (formalism): Formalism for definition of high-level language [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/29
>
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> A formalism must be picked for defining each of the constructs of the high-level language, as prose is considered insufficient.
>
> Proposals include:
>
> - An abstract syntax plus prose
> - An axiomatic semantics
> - SPARQL, and dealing with nested high-level expressions by building up a query string to be evaluated at once
> - SPARQL, and dealing with nested high-level expressions by evaluting each part individually and combining the results outside of SPARQL
> - …
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:58:33 UTC