- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 19:19:06 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 3/22/15 3:17 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote: > 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. I do not believe this group is capable of anticipating all future requirements that average SHACL users will need. A far better process is therefore to provide a generic mechanism that allows anyone to define new language constructs. The SHACL template mechanism is exactly that - any community can define new terms, back them with formal semantics and share their definitions in machine readable format. There are some obvious template candidates such as sh:minCount and sh:valueType that will be included by default. But there is nothing substantially different between sh:minCount and, say, my:keyProperty, or (as suggested today on the Hydra mailing list) the ability to narrow down properties by namespace, or to state that all literals must have distinct language tags. There is an almost infinite variety of such constraint patterns, and SPARQL covers them nicely. The design of a hard-coded language with fixed semantics for a random subset that some small group of people in 2015 found interesting is fundamentally outdated and does not exploit the spirit of the semantic web. Holger
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 09:19:38 UTC