- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:29:33 -0400
- To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
<Because there is not a clear separation between the high-level language constructs and the SPARQL definitions. My main point is that we have to separate one from the other so we can also define the semantics by other means.> First, what you are saying seems to be in a direct contradiction to the working group resolution. Second, if your concern is implementing using something other than SPARQL, this does not require a redefinition of semantics. SPARQL formally defines the semantics of the language constructs making it clear and unambiguous what a result of implementing different constructs needs to be. It would help if you could use a specific example of some SHACL statement (such as a value constraint or cardinality constraint) explaining what is preventing you from implementing it without SPARQL and how would expressing its semantics using some other formalism would change this. Third, should you want to, as a separate deliverable, you can still describe the semantics using some other formalism. The fact that SPARQL is used to describe the semantics does not prevent you from describing the same semantics using another notation providing you can identify or design a notation that is suitable to expressing the semantics. > On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:59 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com> wrote: > > Because there is not a clear separation between the high-level language constructs and the SPARQL definitions. My main point is that we have to separate one from the other so we can also define the semantics by other means.
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 10:30:04 UTC