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 13:27:29 +1000
Message-ID: <55064DA1.8040405@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/16/2015 11:34, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * 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

Arnaud had suggested a way to resolve that impasse, and I have reworked 
the SHACL spec [1] to implement that idea. The high-level language is 
now edited out from the SPARQL aspects, and IMHO this addresses all 
needs by the implementers of light-weight engines that only want to 
support the core profile. Please review that document and tell me where 
you see specific remaining problems.

> 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.

We will strongly oppose the creation of two separate specifications. 
First, the language is already very consistently self-defined based on 
SPARQL templates as currently written. Second, the layering that you 
propose is broken, because once you have templates you don't need the 
first deliverable anymore. Third, a separation will make it all too easy 
for anyone from the outside of the WG to raise a formal objection to the 
SPARQL part only, and we end up with only a fraction of the requirements 
addressed. The core language alone is not worth standardizing by itself 
and would IMHO create more damage than benefits - it would simply 
further fragment the already small OWL community. So we would end up 
with nothing at all, after two years of hard work.

>> 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.
> ]]

I suggested to rename the *title*, which still claims to be about "SHACL 


[1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 03:28:36 UTC

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