Re: What we voted on at the f2f

On 3/25/15 3:18 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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.

Furthermore, the ability to define new macros is an approved 
requirement. It is in fact a luxury for this WG that SPARQL is an 
established foundation and that we can rely on our own mechanism to 
define the core language features too. Languages like OWL didn't have 
this luxury and required to come up with a separation between syntax and 
semantics, creating a complicating stack of specifications.

Holger

Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 23:09:29 UTC