Re: Requirement 2.11.7, Separation of Structural from Complex Constraints

Jose,

There is a resolution that the language to be delivered by this group is going to be called “SHACL”. There is another resolution that there may be profiles of the language with limited functionality.

You seem to reject the notion of profiles, and instead want a “core language” called “SHACL” and a “non-core language” called something else. I don’t see this as compatible with previous resolutions.

Best,
Richard



> On 5 Mar 2015, at 15:17, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> 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> 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
>

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:22:48 UTC