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

Re: What we voted on at the f2f

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:18:04 -0400
To: <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D13712A2.27C4F%irene@topquadrant.com>
<I took this to mean that the specification
would use SPARQL as the "abstract language" to define the meaning of the
SHACL vocabulary.>

I believe this is what is being followed in the spec.

<In fact, I don't think that we made a decision as to the
implementation of SHACL or to any stated relationship between SHACL as a
specification and any particular implementations of SHACL.>

I donšt believe it would be within the remit of the WG to mandate a
particular way to implement SHACL. WG could only define what must happen
given certain data and certain SHACL constraint - irrespective of how
implementers accomplish this.

However, of course, once one defines the meaning of SHACL vocabulary using
SPARQL, they are half way (not all the way though) to the implementation
because SPARQL is executable. Thus, the view that SHACL specification
describes SPARQL-based implementation does have some grounds. It is not a
goal in itself, but a by-product of using SPARQL to define the meaning.

Irene

On 3/24/15, 1:04 PM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>We clearly have different interpretations of the meaning of our vote at
>the face-to-face, which was:
>
>RESOLUTION: Define semantics using SPARQL as much as possible
>
>My view may be naive, but I took this to mean that the specification
>would use SPARQL as the "abstract language" to define the meaning of the
>SHACL vocabulary. The minutes of the f2f show that the vote was taken in
>the context of a discussion of the "normative expression" for SHACL, and
>a "formalism." Others suggested included the use of Z as a formalism,
>but that didn't get much traction.
>
>There is another view, which is that the SHACL specification describes a
>SPARQL implementation, although other implementations are not excluded.
>This view treats the specification as a description of the SPARQL
>implementation, referring to it as a "built-in" language for SHACL. In
>this view, there is no "abstract language" formally defining SHACL.
>
>I see a rather large gap between using SPARQL as a formalism in the
>specification, and assuming that the SHACL standard is a SPARQL
>implementation. In fact, I don't think that we made a decision as to the
>implementation of SHACL or to any stated relationship between SHACL as a
>specification and any particular implementations of SHACL.
>
>However, as I said, my view may be naive, but I wonder if we can't
>clarify at least what we voted on at the f2f, since we seem to be
>intoning that vote in our discussion here with at least two different
>meanings.
>
>kc
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 17:18:42 UTC

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