- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:07:29 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <550B64C1.4000601@topquadrant.com>
Hi Michel, there was not enough time in the call, but I'd like to follow up on your comment that is recorded [1] as "I find it distracting to find SPARQL references in the main document. Separate document is best. I worry about templating mechanism as people will express constraints using templates vs. SHACL itself." It seems like you are basically saying you don't want SPARQL in the standard at all. Just moving it into another document will not make a difference. The current spec is clear enough about the possibility to use SHACL without SPARQL, and these will also be the first examples that everyone will see. The majority of users will not be exposed to SHACL via our spec first, but they'll see examples on the web, in Primers, tutorials and may be guided by editing tools. Finally, why should the SPARQL people be punished because some implementers want to only support a sub-set of the language. It would be like claiming that OWL = OWL Lite and pushing OWL Full into some dark naughty corner. Yes this has happened before, yet the OWL spec first includes all of OWL [2] and introduces profiles later. That is the way to go IMHO. Having said this, I cannot imagine that anyone would prefer to "declare" their properties in cryptic SPARQL instead of using sh:property, so I may have misunderstood your point. Thanks Holger [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/03/19-shapes-irc [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 00:08:43 UTC