differences between github SHACL spec and my SPARQL-based spec from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2015-03-05 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2015)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 13:56:59 -0800
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <54F8D12B.90100@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Significant differences between my SHACL specification (now at
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-sparql) and the specification
at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/


My specification

- - has a single execution engine - SPARQL - instead of multiple exeuction
  engines

- - has a single semantics - translation to SPARQL - instead of potentially
  multiple semantics

- - is completely implementable by first translating to SPARQL and then
  running the SPARQL queries under the RDFS entailment regime, instead of
  requiring significant extensions to SPARQL

- - is centered around constraints and shapes instead of being centered around
  classes and nodes

- - does not have (self-)recursion

- - does not have any OO features like private, or abstract, or final, or
  inheritance, or extends

- - has reporting based on SPARQL
  - There is nothing to prevent post-processing, though.

- - has no functions

- - has no contexts


peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+NErAAoJECjN6+QThfjzp7oH/jwKk4qoqLvSK4Sa1qvDhhfT
HnncGycBf4LSHM4DXfeMT8nG9CzMzd0mXLHx5Ubgwm7Ob974y3oXGJ+nPRRRHISo
SjalB0RlLfnNEXD83fYeVrJ0cyTgcsf7QXiOBtpInpDZBgaX0uyRu90KPNyJCOV4
d+sWGpAh8VY4f5vNmhELKwFfVxh8BfU41eJ6wYQvzMxwHupfI5VnkziEsuKQsjje
Qrs+Ui0QgVs3ZZjrKy37c4WoqiLCj4fyKJSDFc1MR7whWtoZZZWqNcZdSxCp2HWv
P+q0EwpDG0fYKq/B9V1YcGOZlYqYg6EOUQryDCPiks+RJTBTxgVCPikuMGH9w6E=
=8C/J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 21:57:33 UTC