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

Re: The NoSPARQL use case

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 08:44:17 +1000
Message-ID: <54F39641.30605@topquadrant.com>
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 

Received on Sunday, 1 March 2015 22:44:49 UTC

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