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

Is this not what we voted on at the f2f?

http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html#resolution02
RESOLUTION: Define semantics using SPARQL as much as possible

kc

On 3/28/15 1:20 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker 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
> - …
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 13:49:42 UTC