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

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2015-03-16 09:12+1000]
> Eric,
> 
> this looks like yet another ShEx specification to me. None of the

It is smaller than ShEx. We're at a bit of an impasse so I wanted to
(once again) separate out the templates stuff and see if we can
proceed with one document describing the core and another describing
the SPIN features. I'd like your help on the complementary document.
I can take a first pass if you'd like.


> input from the "SPIN" camp from the last half a year has been
> integrated. You should probably rename your document accordingly, at
> least to clarify that this is about some variant of the SHACL Core
> Profile only.

Done. Abstract reads:
[[
This document defines the core SHACL (SHApes Constraint Language), a
language for constraining RDF instance graphs.
]]


> Thanks,
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 3/15/2015 10:34, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-12 13:56-0700]
> >>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?
> >As a down-payment, I offer <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/>.
> >I hope to produce a start on an axiomatic semantics and a SPARQL semantics
> >tomorrow.
> >
> >
> >>peter
> >>
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 01:34:22 UTC