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

Re: “SHACL Minus SPARQL”

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:38:37 -0800
Message-ID: <54F8868D.9040902@gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
CC: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

If the language allows SPARQL constructs and closed shapes then it should
allow SPARQL constructs in closed shapes.

peter


On 03/04/2015 09:57 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> 
> On Mar 5, 2015 2:09 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
> I think that your method only works for certain shapes.
> 
> Consider, for example, a value of p is b AND a value of p is c OR a value
> of q is d
> 
> 
>> I don't understand this shape, I think this should always fail unless b
>> and c are equal.
> 
> The closure filter here is a function of the entire shape.  If the shape 
> includes raw SPARQL code constructing the filter would require a
> semantic analysis of the SPARQL code.
> 
>> You are right about SPARQL, it never occurred to me that we would allow
>> it in closed shapes.
> 
> 
> 
> peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+IaNAAoJECjN6+QThfjz4aYIANMo3Cx6QJno1mFON4azu7W+
IlYKPQ62KE10rFV9/Jpc91srFFD9VOkQ6pUS/cKQcCzDqv4HkrcKxCqRTnAP84tP
Vf7q4l3xrrgPwhDwK2sq2C/IxW26wFbjIF9BA0/alIGWKUqFXXF+jymoGk0vKOQb
S6CirRc+1irDhei8lOUX/J21uZl/5LlLCNqJDyCj1HTgsKp7N44vgf4I1Oso0qC2
uLqwDuAIYQXWLsM34erLIw05N0Z6L09l58kRf+jMNV3kIqgJfgFMjWnlX9YQoUF8
Tf+HYdufTKCpb4CheDrSyMO8QOnthXG66T0lE7ZP0Z1SUQOg1+6LbLpEpt3CUAU=
=VUVb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:39:09 UTC

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