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

Re: Proposals around SPARQL

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:56:52 -0400
Message-ID: <CAApBiOkMEiyGrrNjSWjNFvn6wTcnFNmUG56nnLUF-xJFji2T8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
1. +1
2. +1
3. +0
4. +1

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here are a few straw-man proposals. I’m submitting them in the hope of establishing a bit of firm ground around the various fault lines within the group. Maybe the Chair could consider putting them to the vote in a future call.
>
> Until the Chair does something official, please consider this a simple opinion poll. It would be very helpful to hear some +1/0/-1 opinions, especially but not only from those who have so far kept out of the SPARQL megathread.
>
> (The proposals are not different answers to the same question. They are all independent. You could agree with all four, or disagree with all four.)
>
>
> PROPOSAL 1: At least one profile of SHACL shall support the definition of constraints using embedded SPARQL queries.
>
> PROPOSAL 2: At least one profile of SHACL shall exclude support for the definition of constraints using embedded SPARQL queries.
>
> PROPOSAL 3: All higher-level language constructs of SHACL shall have normative definitions in SPARQL, except where this is not possible.
>
> PROPOSAL 4: At least one profile of SHACL shall support the definition of new higher-level language constructs using embedded SPARQL queries.
>
>
> Best,
> Richard
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 23:57:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC