Re: shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in extension language [SHACL Spec]

On 4/18/2015 0:50, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Holger, your "built-in" contains a concept of conformance. I think 
> conformance, especially conformance to a particular technology, is a 
> far horizon for us compared to where we are today.* So "built-in" may 
> be premature. Perhaps this should wait.

Well, I hope we are closer to such a decision than you state - at some 
stage we need to deliver something concrete before the group expires. If 
anyone sees alternatives to SPARQL, then they should be proposed soon 
and we can have separate votes on them. While I do not see a realistic 
alternative to SPARQL in the current landscape, I do agree that 
technology evolves and we should not exclude future standards such as an 
RDF-friendly query protocol for JavaScript-based data. I do believe that 
once we have sh:sparql then adding sh:js or sh:futureLanguage is quite 
straight-forward.

Holger


>
> kc
> * I personally prefer conformance to be defined in terms of 
> input/output or situational results rather than specific technologies. 
> Conformance rules of the former type may better endure technology 
> evolution.
>
> On 4/16/15 6:07 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Built-in here means part of the official spec (similar to how "my" draft
>> does this right now) - part of the "Full" language. Not just an example,
>> but mandatory for anyone claiming full SHACL support.
>>
>> HTH
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2015 10:49, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Holger, it would help if you could define what you mean by "built-in."
>>> Do you mean included in the spec? If so, included as a complete
>>> solution, as an example, ?????
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>>
>>> On 4/16/15 5:23 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>>> shapes-ISSUE-45 (SPARQL-extension): Should SPARQL be a built-in
>>>> extension language [SHACL Spec]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/45
>>>>
>>>> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
>>>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>>>
>>>> I think there is enough agreement that SHACL should have an
>>>> "extension" language to cover cases not addressed by the core
>>>> vocabulary, and to define new high-level terms (templates). I believe
>>>> we should get the question clarified whether SPARQL is such an
>>>> extension language. This question is independent of whether other
>>>> languages such as JavaScript could also be supported - that would be
>>>> another ISSUE.
>>>>
>>>> PROPOSAL: SHACL should include SPARQL as an extension language.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 19 April 2015 22:53:40 UTC