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

On 3/15/15 8:27 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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.

Holger, the sentence:

"SPARQL is the only built-in execution language in SHACL, but other 
languages may be supported future versions or by third parties."

is problematic given the intended separation of language from 
implementation. First, there are no "third parties" -- we're all just 
"parties." Second, I believe we intend SPARQL as a definitional 
language, knowing full-well that it will also be an execution language. 
But the agreement at the f2f was to use SPARQL to define the meaning of 
the language. I don't think there should be a built-in execution method 
or language in the SHACL language spec.

I suggest this as a substitute for that sentence:

SHACL is defined in this document using SPARQL statements. It may be 
implemented using any suitable execution language.

Then, if we agree on the intent, I can read through the rest with that 
in mind.

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 16 March 2015 15:20:52 UTC