Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints

Jose, I like your definition, although I'm not sure what it has to do 
with structure, per se. I think what you describe here is the "light 
weight core" that is sometimes advocated for. If so, perhaps we need to 
change the name of the requirement along with its definition.

kc

On 3/5/15 7:17 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:09:38 UTC