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

Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 15:45:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJadXXLHaeSQD6rmijdYVAMEwv7W6KEzEMLgiZuMB7VzMr2ntA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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

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