Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints

Although I agree with the essence of the requirement, I don't agree with
the new rephrasing which is based on one of the proposed alternatives
(SHACL Minus SPARQL vs SHACL plus SPARQL) that is being discussed in
another thread and that has not been resolved yet.

I suggest a more neutral rephrasing like:

[[[
There shall be a core language or a SHACL profile that excludes any support
for constraints defined via embedded SPARQL queries or other complex
lower-level expressions. This is so that lightweight applications can
validate constraints without requiring a SPARQL processor or similar
subsystem.
]]]

Best regards, Jose Labra

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
wrote:

> I took an action to propose a rephrasing of Requirement 2.11.7,
> “Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints”
>
> Link:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Separation_of_structural_from_complex_constraints
>
> I encourage in particular those who have voted on the original constraint
> (HK, KC:+1, SSt:+1, labra: +1, pfps: -1) to consider whether this changes
> their vote, and if so, update the wiki.
>
> The original requirement reads:
>
> [[[
> The language should separate structural constraints from more complex
> constraints (like arbitrary SPARQL or nested constraint expressions) so
> that certain light-weight applications can validate the constraints without
> a full SPARQL processor.
> ]]]
>
> My proposed rephrasing:
>
> [[[
> There shall be a SHACL profile that excludes any support for constraints
> defined via embedded SPARQL queries or other complex lower-level
> expressions. This is so that lightweight applications can validate
> constraints without requiring a SPARQL processor or similar subsystem.
> ]]]
>
> This completes ACTION-15.
>
> Richard
>



-- 
-- Jose Labra