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

Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work?

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 08:00:40 +1000
Message-ID: <55020C88.7020801@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Furthermore, what did people actually vote for:

b.1) Only the higher-level language shall become standard and SPARQL 
could be an add-on outside of the standard (e.g. shaclx:sparql)

b.2) Both the higher-level language and SPARQL would become standard but 
in separate deliverables, both normative.

The wording "main specification" leaves both interpretations open. With 
b.1 the obvious consequence will be that nobody will use SPARQL because 
it will be regarded as vendor-specific extension.

Thanks,
Holger




On 3/13/15 6:56 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There were a number of WG members who voted for:
>    b) The main specification shall include the higher-level language
>    constructs only and the rest shall be defined in add-ons.
>
> Can any one describe how this option would work?  Would there be a single
> way of defining the meaning of the entire language (main spec and add-ons)
> or would there be several ways of the defining what constructs mean?
>
>
>
> peter
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVAf12AAoJECjN6+QThfjzmIQIAJmZd8Z3mxE3klutnEpTehoC
> W07T3dip5/n8JprBK5Lw1qpe8p8SyUyDQ1eVoelKXVnIHq7DWtbc1GFm7u2Rq/sJ
> fw8WFeblQw6nSa4CnV9cxNP5bgItA1A6msj2ZBNx6vh4ZYnYRnPBDqWswYfO4zOY
> sWwYdbrFlSQDct7dz1LPksybWQ4ghceLIUphNJ7lldYz73WsLqzUICOv9f0zn8kX
> ZqJaVt1v94rev2exllmzvefzTm6sVB18sO8zYKE9q1NMdVmf8Y+9eD2IdYqu9X7q
> 8y9KDMJR+4kGZ21EA0m6XzttZCmr54JfI51qNTQdipo8zTNx264cVOy/eb4bJBg=
> =3veP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2015 22:01:12 UTC

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