- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:36:55 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/2/15 2:28 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > Yet for SHACL 1.0, I agree with Peter that SPARQL is *inevitable*. > Instead of regarding SPARQL as a necessary evil, I am however certainly > embracing it as an opportunity. I think the group agreed with this -- that the SHACL spec would be illustrated in terms of SPARQL, and with the assumption that SPARQL would be an early (read "first") implementation. I still favor the production of an abstract model, whether as a separate document or as introductory material to the SHACL 1.0 document. Such a model serves as a kind of check point for the group, but even more importantly it serves as a useful introduction for future implementers. Yes, some folks will plunge right into SHACL as implemented in SPARQL and will not think about it in the abstract, but there will be others for whom the abstract model is key for understanding. I just don't see a down side to it. -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 14:37:22 UTC