Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL?

On Mar 6, 2015 7:17 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It seems that the working group is supposed to be pushing towards
> publication of a SHACL specification document in the near future.   Does
> anyone have any alternatives to a SPARQL-based semantics for SHACL that
they
> would like to put forward?
>
> Yes, I am aware that there are three potential semantics from the Shape
> Expressions community that might be alternatives, but is anyone going to
> champion either the current version of one of these semantics or have a
> modified version available in time for consideration by the working group?

I thought the plan was to publish the primer and to work some more on the
semantics before publication.

> peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+UZWAAoJECjN6+QThfjz1WkIAMSruKupbQjCk4nTjSTkEvA0
> pA8tdqYkubYUtaIDG1hS8z9SET2YydURneK6qYJMvkCHXzVupUZ/74L9PDzgm2uC
> QKyOnI3IgywHzXgU+LXTWbdyxVVcBGUoiWI5V5DH7M/FPKCScgIrNuty+03lbQW6
> DivfCtZEKNI21P0Ar8WIEFDV219lFDBkrewIZfA4Nb8iOHYBwLYUMGdA9JxXo2tt
> agbJWwWMSrvvSyNmSXdsS49QSNjFhnTHAQRBVDoARHYUrEB4ajHAU7xlZMs8uqeg
> bDxE+SIURDEQVmVMVrNwlokg/ZmvNC5sBIudKbfsOQO6xC9Pp7UM4tNREWamiWg=
> =Xn1D
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>