Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-32 as done

On 7/29/15 1:16 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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?

I don't have a particular meaning. The issue makes reference to 
"high-level language" and I don't think we have a shared definition of 
that. So there's nothing clear to me about this issue, and there are a 
lot of aspects of SHACL relating to core, high-level language, etc., 
that are also unclear.

kc


>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

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

Received on Thursday, 30 July 2015 04:13:47 UTC