- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:12:22 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/2/15 1:45 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > +1 for Jose's analysis. We did agree at the f2f that the first > implementation examples would be shown in SPARQL, but not that the > language would *depend* on SPARQL. Which parts of SHACL do *depend* on SPARQL? The spec makes it very clear that SPARQL can be one executable language among others. If someone has alternative language proposals to be included then we should consider them too, and may add them either in the first or a future version of SHACL. SPARQL was proposed because it has very good coverage of the requirements. The other role of SPARQL is as a precise specification language similar to how others propose some abstract syntax. The SPARQL queries backing the built-in high-level vocabulary do not have to be used by any implementation, but they do define the inputs and outputs like a reference implementation. Holger
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 22:12:54 UTC