Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

So you are saying that you can either do recursive shapes inside SPARQL,
which requires an extension to SPARQL, or outside of SPARQL, which requires
something more than SPARQL.  OK, I'll change the wording to "It provides a
formal specification for SHACL in terms of SPARQL plus something extra to
handle recursive shapes."

peter


On 03/19/2015 05:16 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> On 3/20/2015 10:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 3/ http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
>> 
>> This document contains a formal specification of SHACL based on SPARQL
>> with extra functionality.
>> 
>> Significant Features: - - It provides a formal specification for SHACL
>> in terms of an extended version of SPARQL.
> 
> Hi Peter, this topic (the presence of the sh:hasShape function as a
> SPARQL extension) seems to have become one of your favorite recurring
> points. Yet I have stated multiple times, and will state it again here,
> that this is just one implementation option among others, and that no
> "extension" to SPARQL is needed. The Spec makes this clear at
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-AbstractValueShapePropertyConstraint
>
> 
> 
> I would appreciate if you stop using this tiny detail to make our two 
> proposals appear more different than they really are.
> 
> Thanks Holger
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVC5RzAAoJECjN6+QThfjzNQUIAKyQJ+y9bBjZPTvutzLyuAoP
AR1w/ZuaVx1sFxtzkAEOlrXRLNSIHlTT3q3B6tMKc5tZZz7q4aRbJgcnvH3mF1n/
ipXYr8m1N8yNfYu1atHeARrzP7MKPhP7GeVafvrlkXzqedkK/9zPvyoP01eHYAkS
UTGx1Cr5BNiRlD5GgNsOZJDDl9VsBSEzO6gSI8Z/B6HX9jtI1H9swBscwahN3Mlz
Oi59kMz9I+WAKpRdzdqbndhNsQe2YnwGS8egRkzOSMV5dcSGA+p+oygFYvH5kES2
AAXqEy4aWe40qEFX5kiUCagPaaOEWP1LodJIyxVhZapXt+e2aqH22Yi8i8r2l5g=
=P5Vc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 03:31:28 UTC