Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL?

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



On 03/06/2015 07:23 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 
> On Mar 6, 2015 7:17 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
> 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.

I thought so too a while ago, and then there was all this debate over the
primer and then the primer appears to have been shelved and this new
document from Holger appeared and there was this apparent push to turn it
into a FPWD.

Holger's document is listed on the web page, and appears as an editors draft
when viewed.  At F2F2 there was a chair proposal to aim at publishing a
SHACL spec, which was not approved, largely because there were several
comments that the document needed considerable work, but work on the
document has been going forward very quickly so this reason for delay is
mostly overcome.  At the teleconference on 26 February there was a chair
comment that there is a rush in getting a FPWD of the spec out and some
discussion of what needs to be done to the document before FPWD.

Meanwhile the primer appears to have languished.

So it seems to me that there is indeed a rush to get a spec document to FPWD
even as there are disapprovals of major portions of the spec in the
document.  I'm one of the members of the working group that have been
voicing and writing disapprovals, but I'm certainly not the only one.
However, I'm the only one who has presented a worked-out counterproposal

So if you believe, like I do, that the current spec document is not going in
the right general direction you have the following choices:
1/ Throw in with me.
2/ Put forward your own proposal, either for a different spec or for major
changes to the current spec document.
3/ Try to slow the rush to FPWD for the spec until something better comes along.

If you are going for 3/ then you should believe that something better will
come along very shortly.  If you are going for 2/ you should realize that at
this point you need something that addresses the vast majority of the
approved and nearly-approved requirements.

peter

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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+dgjAAoJECjN6+QThfjzZ+oIALqu3rDQedQPItawTbdeJTkf
9KQUKh+woRBqDIzdy6dVLknuMp/06w2LfOOUX73eS7vPdcBykS1Il4wDN65gzL8Q
/ExWmW5y/1YhSDh1oe4F8zPm/Ph9VQ9BlgR4fUbCANd928yzTPoE94APyNrU0XO1
EbcX4ccLIBA0LoHPcNoNyCD8Ms4p9NSk8wT87WxrTRua3uVDN7eC5GLDgLX0xId9
ZTE0SwsC5cIF9KCuJ1WC95zYH5HrUByDWLnrSS7ZZYillqkajk33kUbe6mJFJgOr
zFoAuTTHMbpd7l00UKYWXDybhxvNVuOBy02ByakmyOLogL4pejJBjHtRON7/uSk=
=ofFt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 16:39:31 UTC