On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote: > <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]> > > I believe this has already been addressed by SHACL. > Not if we don't have a set of well defined constructs with a clear semantics and we limit SHACL to have a single "template" construct where we can put any SPARQL code. > > Further, at this point, we should be working from requirements, not from > the workshop results. The working group supersedes previous requirements > work by either turning whatever has been said before its start into its set > of accepted requirements or not. > > If you think there is a missing requirement, propose it. Then, it could be > reviewed, shared understanding formed, accepted and the solution evaluated > against it. > There is no missing requirement. The requirement has already been approved. See [1] [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Higher-Level_Language > On Mar 2, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 Labra
Received on Tuesday, 3 March 2015 14:46:24 UTC