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

Follow-up on Michel's comment

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:07:29 +1000
Message-ID: <550B64C1.4000601@topquadrant.com>
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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.


[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

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