Re: AW: SHACL Rules?

People are free to collaborate on whatever they want obviously but to 
publish anything as coming from the WG, even as a WG Note, requires 
agreement from the WG. This would therefore require people to review the 
document and approve publication which would have some cost, although 
clearly less for a Note than if it were part of a spec on the REC track.

I have to admit not to be keen on adding anything to our plate at this 
point and while some people are interested I didn't get the feeling that 
this was true for everybody. If you think the situation is different we 
could ask again. An alternative is for you to create a Community Group. 
CGs are very light weight structures that would give you a space to work 
on this. See https://www.w3.org/community/groups/

I'd be happy to give you more info on CGs if you'd like.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote on 12/18/2015 05:35:46 AM:

> From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
> To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, 
public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 12/18/2015 05:35 AM
> Subject: AW: SHACL Rules?
> 
> +1
> 
> I would love to work on this.
> 
> simon
> 
> 
> -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
> Von: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> 
> Datum: 18.12.2015 14:31 (GMT+01:00) 
> An: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org 
> Betreff: SHACL Rules? 
> 
> I have a process question. During the meeting it turned out that at 
> least three WG members were interested in a SHACL extension to represent 

> rules. I believe this is a low hanging fruit, similar to SPIN rules. For 

> example
> 
> ex:MyShape
>      a sh:Shape ;
>      sh:scopeClass ex:Person ;
>      shr:rule [
>          sh:sparql """
>              CONSTRUCT {
>                  ?this ex:age ?age .
>              }
>              WHERE {
>                  ?this ex:birthYear ?birthYear .
>                  BIND (ex:currentYear() - ?birthYear AS ?age)
>              } """
>      ] .
> 
> SHACL already provides all key building blocks, even the concept of 
> SPARQL binding and scoping.
> 
> I understand the concern that this is potentially outside of the 
> charter, and that we don't want to spend precious WG resources on this. 
> However, assuming that the interested parties create a separate 
> deliverable on this "in their spare time", is there any format in which 
> we could publish this (as a note) within the umbrella of the Shapes WG? 
> The WG is also discussing Abstract Syntax and Compact Syntax documents 
> that appear complementary and optional for implementers.
> 
> (To keep it simple we could in the first pass exclude any inter-rule 
> dependencies, i.e. not even do fixpoint iteration. We use this a lot for 

> data transformations/mapping, where a single pass is sufficient.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Holger
>