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

Re: Implementation feasibility

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:42:01 +1000
Message-ID: <550F6159.2090802@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 3/21/2015 18:36, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> I have identified the different roles of SPARQL vs SHACL in this other 
> email:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Feb/0368.html

In which you contradict yourself in a single paragraph:

3.- Define new macros using SPARQL. This is for me the most controversial
point. I may agree to have some mechanism to define macros in the language,
but i would not impose those macros to be defined only in SPARQL. If we
want macros with parameters and so, we can add some language construct to
define macros. Defining those macros directly in SPARQL is a language
mistake. It means that the high level language (Shacl) allows users to
define functions in the low level language (SPARQL). It would be as if Java
programmers could define their methods using bytecodes.

First you state that you'd prefer if SPARQL was not the *only* language 
for macros. Then later you state that using SPARQL is a mistake. It 
would be helpful to get a clarification on your current opinion about 
this critical question.

Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 00:43:13 UTC

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