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

Re: Looking at the current proposals for SHACL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 04:47:19 -0700
Message-ID: <550C08C7.2000408@gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thinking further on

An alternative design would be to hard-code the sh:valueShape property into
the engine, and do the recursion in the outer layer, outside of SPARQL.

I don't see how it would work.


peter


On 03/19/2015 09:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/20/15 1:30 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> -----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."
> 
> Yes the critical difference is that option 2 could still be executed
> with off-the-shelf SPARQL processors.
> 
> I would also be fine with the same solution that you have, and simply
> disallow recursion at sh:valueShape.
> 
> Thanks, Holger
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDAjHAAoJECjN6+QThfjzj3gIAJOs8jHDN1NruSNt85meW4Mz
ubqO0IojW0jHhrf2ATKKLkOR+KnMGQdx5PoP38UCWVFFkITQu2niMMOKl6LMtaoO
zur7k1yyrdrAE5HnS1dBipIyN6WdAzMwvcaPCGozN36u1GZRpK9smmQx6rFZBOSu
0a81FZc3qUovPlNxkdRKDo+h/Dl/3D90E85hKgqSbnNLna0WYtY44iffZAp2boWj
TrOr8HGXj6MwZMSJfdo9AqnzpHO7Kpkw952O3QJ1qwylDDYC2zRX/JrJ2l1nlb+g
FpqXhnQYonFJdtdweVaPUpI2HP5cHgSSb+x4+Dh55tU7SaPSIdqPOT6+PJPm2ps=
=VZ1w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 11:47:49 UTC

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