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

Re: Implementation feasibility

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 06:17:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJadXXK69Eo05U4YW7B8X+SaSGrcwzPQ-CgCbvUfwuxXKoBqiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>
> >>>
> >>>> There are several implementations for ShEx, which is a similar
> >>>> language to the one described there.
>
[...]

> >
> > Because you are saying that there is a significant difference between
> > ShEx and SHACL and I say that the people behind ShEx are flexible enough
> > to adapt what has been proposed for ShEx to SHACL.
>
> This also does not, by itself, mean that implementations of ShEx
> demonstrate
> implementation feasibility of the core of SHACL.
>

Of course not, how can one demonstrate without a crystal ball when SHACL
has not been defined? My assertion was precisely that implementing ShEx was
feasible and that if the SHACL high level language is similar it should
also be feasible.

Furthermore, all ShEx implementations that I know have been done by single
individuals as a proof-of-concept.

> As an example, I am more inclined to have both inclusive and exclusive
> > or, so the user can chose which one depending on its validation needs.
>
> I'm not sure how adding features makes the core of SHACL more
> implementable.
>

It was an example about design language flexibility, not implementability.
At this moment we are not adding features, we are choosing which are the
features. It is better now to put every language construct on the table so
the WG can select which ones should or should not be part of the language.
That's why I to propose to start designing the SHACL high-level language
instead of imposing an implementation based on SPARQL.

Best regards, Jose Labra

>
> > Best regards, Jose Labra
>
> peter
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDhkWAAoJECjN6+QThfjzOQkH/RZH+BSOEAJluWFHSzscaPnK
> jJ1GS4XLCgKT5eOboZBhMUSMiiiI2jRRX3eZ7NEyJttGyo4AEfTzLwQSIjAEiUIt
> pIvjOu+XIRt1g27/yKQVkXNniONu8aHtGqXYLWZZTNXwbM6FeNVXDop0VWbsRYf1
> Ao+dUmsaDtsnsuzFH3kzAur+2L5lLkvyBxz+EpRzq9phOYYpEj3xvtDLz/+PP2uU
> KCSLxWHeD4No6Wg3A31mK/HHqV5AgmIriXsATRM9523OQm1z2K/nAqrvw1acWQ90
> HJkwwJuWi3ZU99pS58afR7fSi9e0czNeb/5GLHqZi2HGCt8q8K7STGJyqb9afiI=
> =T5J7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>



-- 
-- Jose Labra
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 05:18:29 UTC

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