Re: Core or Lite?

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 03/23/2015 08:47:57 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>, "public-data-shapes-
> wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
...
> >
> > Part 2: SHACL Extensions Vocabulary
> > -- This defines the extension mechanism and at least the SPARQL
> > language binding. May also contain the JavaScript language binding if
> > there is enough interest from the WG members and public.
> 
> I don't like the term "extensions" - it creates a wrong impression. 
> Writing a constraint based on a SPARQL query is not an extension, it is 
> a completely normal use of SHACL. And creating a template is simply 
> using the macro facility, which is also a regular part of SHACL. I would 

> rather call these "advanced" topics, or speak about "complex queries" 
> and "macro facilities".

Holger,
What would constitute the "extension mechanism" in your view then?

I have to point out that Arthur's suggestion happens to be very much in 
line with what the charter calls for:

An RDF vocabulary, such as Resource Shapes 2.0, for expressing these 
shapes in RDF triples, so they can be stored, queried, analyzed, and 
manipulated with normal RDF tools, with some extensibility mechanism for 
complex use cases.

I don't think it helps to ignore that and try to force people into 
considering what was meant to be an "extensibility mechanism for complex 
use cases" the "completely normal use of SHACL".
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group