- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:44:17 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/2/15 7:19 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote: > One you have identified the language constructs you have to implement > them. SPARQL by itself is not enough as it doesn't handle, for > example, recursion so there is a need for something else. The example of recursion gets mentioned over and over again. Is there any other example? I suggested we define a SPARQL function sh:hasShape to handle the recursion. But we could even live without that. We would just need to hard-code the Shape that has the sh:valueShape property so that engines would automatically do the recursion in the control flow outside of SPARQL. > > Apart from that, I have already said that I have no problem to have > mappings to SPARQL and even to include them in the spec. But what I > would like to know, is why should we design something that depends on > SPARQL when there is an alternative to define something that can be > independently implemented? What is the advantage of limiting it to > only be implemented in SPARQL? The SHACL spec does not state that templates can only be implemented in SPARQL. Holger
Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 22:44:49 UTC