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

Re: What we voted on at the f2f

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:08:57 +1000
Message-ID: <5511EE89.2050500@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
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.

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

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