- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 14:35:04 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 4/8/15 1:03 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > I am against the splitting of documents if this risks a situation in > which the Core gets standardized while the SPARQL bits do not get > standardized. Only in that situation my point is that the SHACL core > language alone would be a step backwards in the evolution of the > semantic web space, because it will cause a fragmentation of the market > without adding much that OWL didn't already have. I think this depends on how we define core. I think of core as being the functions that will serve the highest percentage of needs - the famed 80% of uses. I don't think that means that those needs are simpler or have a simpler solution or do not use SPARQL. This means that we should develop standard solutions to that 80% if we can. I prefer that we identify that core and get clarity on it before rejecting features (as in the discussion of paths) for implementation reasons. That doesn't mean that everything we would like to have as core will be provided in the standard; I just think that we musn't leap into implementation questions before we settle the "what do we want" question -- do the "what" then the "how", then iterate until we have the best possible solution. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 21:35:33 UTC