W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:12:22 +1000
Message-ID: <54F38EC6.5000408@topquadrant.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC