Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

On 3/3/2015 14:59, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>
>
>     Why should this group take on such undertaking instead of reusing
>     already existing language produced by W3C?
>
>
> Because "SPARQL queries cannot easily be inspected and understood, 
> either by human beings or by machines, to uncover the constraints that 
> are to be respected". [1]

Jose, the sentence following your excerpt above is

"The term 'shape' emerged as a popular label for these constraints."

I believe this clarifies that the group was not contrasting SPARQL with 
something like XPath, but rather SPARQL versus the high-level vocabulary 
of sh:minCount and sh:valueType. A new language such as a 
yet-to-be-defined variant of XPath or a yet-to-be-defined subset of 
SPARQL's FILTER expressions would arguably have the same basic 
characteristics as SPARQL itself.

Holger