- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:53:19 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I can imagine a situation where the technology around the data is minimal and the only requirements are min/max on properties. An example of this could be Hydra, which uses JSON-LD: http://www.w3.org/ns/hydra/spec/latest/core/ At the point of data exchange, which is what Hydra does, no assumption is made that there is any use of SPARQL. kc On 3/1/15 3:35 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Eric, hi Jose, > > Both of you have said that SHACL should be implementable without having access to a SPARQL engine. > > I’d like to understand what motivates this requirement. > > Can you expand on this? What are the positive consequences for our various users (SHACL document authors, SHACL implementers, end users of products that support SHACL, etc.) that would result from being able to implement SHACL without having a SPARQL engine? > > If this has been discussed or written up in the past before I joined the WG, then I apologise and would be grateful for a pointer. > > Thanks, > Richard > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 15:53:48 UTC