- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:44:33 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/1/15 2:12 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Which parts of SHACL do *depend* on SPARQL? " SPARQL is a built-in execution language in SHACL, but other languages may be supported in the future or by third parties." At the f2f meeting, we resolved: "RESOLUTION: Define semantics using SPARQL as much as possible" I read that as being different from a "built-in execution language." As it seemed at the time, we were agreeing on providing the document with examples and explanations using SPARQL. We did not agree that we were defining SPARQL as the built-in execution language -- our discussion was about the document, not the implementation of SHACL. This would also mean the removal of section 15 to a separate document that defines a SPARQL implementation. Each "execution language" would then be defined in a document separate from the primary SHACL document. All of that assumes that other execution languages are possible. If they are not, then we should give up the facade of being "execution language neutral." kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Monday, 2 March 2015 04:45:12 UTC