- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 06:16:11 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 7/30/15 12:57 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > I don't think that we've actually reached full agreement on this, but > perhaps this issue needs to be re-worded. First, this talks about a > high-level language, and I don't think that's the same as "core." In > fact, I'm not at all sure where the high level language fits into > SHACL at the moment -- there is a language being developed in the > current spec, but it doesn't seem to me to be the high level language > that we've discussed. When you say "high-level language", do you mean the "Compact Syntax" like ShExC? Holger > > And while there seems to be agreement that SHACL has a core, in most > discussions it is clear that we do not have a shared definition of > what defines that core nor what defines NOT core. > > Maybe we first need to decide what the issue is (or issues are), and > if this one represents it/them, or should be deleted and replaced with > more precise statements. > > kc > > On 7/27/15 4:52 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> I believe we have answered the questions raised by ISSUE 32 [1] already >> when we adopted the current draft. SHACL consists of a core language >> plus one or more extension languages. SPARQL is one of those extension >> languages, and we decided to try to use SPARQL as much as possible to >> define the Core. >> >> Holger >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/32 >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 20:16:46 UTC