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

Re: On the inevitability of SPARQL/SPIN for SHAQL

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 09:46:32 -0800
Message-ID: <54F5F378.20202@kcoyle.net>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

On 3/3/15 8:01 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> As far as the higher level language requirement, I agree with the
> previous email (I think it was either from Dean or from Peter) that
> there is a lack of consensus on what the requirement means and,
> subsequently, what would satisfy it.
> Quite a number of people believe that this requirement is addressed
> thoroughly by having a well thought out library of “core macros” with
> clear semantics.

Should we make this an issue so that we can clear it up?
- what does "higher" mean? higher than what?
- is the assumption that the higher level language is THE language of 
the standard, or A language of the standard?
- Could a suite of macros satisfy this requirement?
- Could a set of core rules satisfy this requirement?

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 17:47:04 UTC

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