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

Re: SHACL semantics - any alternatives to SPARQL?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 19:16:30 +0000
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A0D85A23-8847-4511-AFA6-A8987E38839D@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>

> On 9 Mar 2015, at 18:25, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>> - The section Associating Data with Shapes ignores the possiblity to
>> attach constraints to classes, despite many people requesting this
>> capability. In the SHACL spec this is currently left open so that
>> both Shapes and Classes can be used, and I would like to see the
>> same placeholder solution applied to the Primer until we have
>> resolved the issue.
> We discussed this extensively during the F2F:
>  http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html#item03
>  http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html#item04
> and agreed that Richard would work out a semantics for punning:

There was no agreement that anyone in particular would work out a semantics for punning, and certainly not me.

> [[
> Start from Eric's Revised LDOM proposal, and explore ways to
> combine shapes and classes such as punning
> ]]
>  http://www.w3.org/2015/02/18-shapes-minutes.html#resolution01

This resolution says that the working group is going to explore ways to combine shapes and classes such as punning. The Primer draft does not reflect this resolution, and hence does not reflect working group consensus. This could be fixed by adding an issue box.

I specifically insisted that the wording “shapes are not classes” is removed from the resolution.

>> - I will continue to object any attempts to marginalize SPARQL into
>> an "extension mechanism". SPARQL is a fundamental part of the
>> language and needs to be presented as such, even if certain people
>> don't believe SPARQL is important and would go beyond the
>> capabilities of their engines.
> I believe the strategy at the F2F was to separate the SPARQL
> and templates bits out, as evidenced by the support for the
> no-class-templates primer.

Besides shapes-as-classes, the technical differences between your and Holger’s versions were not discussed at all. Here’s how Arnaud framed the question which one to adopt as a starting point:

If we started with Eric's LDOM, we will have something concrete that people can raise issues against.

And that is exactly what the group endorsed: A concrete starting point that people can raise issues against.

That endorsement is not evidence of support for any particular design choice made in that document.

It is funny that you are now quoting that resolution as an excuse to reject the raising of issues against the document.

Received on Monday, 9 March 2015 19:16:56 UTC

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