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: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:32:45 +1000
Message-ID: <550632BD.9050309@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

On 3/16/15 11:15 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> This is the impasse I'm trying to address with this document. We are 
> in a position where some folks want an implementation and some just 
> want a language definition.

You are presenting this as an exclusive-or choice. The current SHACL 
Spec is primarily a language definition, but it also has an a default 
implementation built-in. How can the latter be a bad thing?

I also remember Jose stating that he cannot proceed writing test cases 
based on the current Spec. But the SPARQL queries serve as a precise 
definition of the semantics, so I do not see why this is blocking him, 
nor anyone who wants to provide a non-SPARQL implementation of the SHACL 
Core Profile.

The natural instinct of previous working groups was to create an 
Abstract Syntax and then some Concrete Syntaxes. But SHACL is a very 
different language, because it already has its own macro facility built 
in, allowing the spec to be nicely self-contained. Implementers just 
need to support a minimum core engine - the rest can be retrieved from 
the definitions in the SHACL Turtle file. This is a very elegant and 
extensible design - much better than hard-coding a random sub-set of the 
language for no convincing reason.


> I'm trying to separate documents so we can have both and the language 
> definition isn't dependent on the implementation. One reason is to 
> cater to different audiences but a perhaps more pressing reason is 
> that the langugae definiton can have many interoperable 
> implementations without waiting for multiple SPIN implementations.
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 01:33:20 UTC

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