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

Re: Core or Lite?

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:25:22 +1000
Message-ID: <5511F262.5040607@topquadrant.com>
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>


On 3/24/15 10:50 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger,
>
> All aspects of SHACL that are described by the spec are normal in the
> sense that they define compliant behavior. You seem to be implying
> that only Part 1 is normal. I don't understand what is gained by this
> use of the term "normal".

I used that term to contrast the use of "extension", which is not fully 
representative of what the "advanced" features are. And some people 
(Eric's primer for example) interpret this that we only need a generic 
extension mechanism, without standardizing the actual SPARQL semantics. 
This is of course not an acceptable outcome for us, because we already 
have this situation with SPIN.

It's all a matter about terminology to make sure that the SPARQL support 
doesn't get marginalized or even deleted.

>
> I'd also like to clarify that I think we only need one RDF namespace.
> Part 1 defines some of the terms and Part 2 defines the rest of the
> terms.
>
> If we are going to use the term "normal", let's agree on the meaning.
> One meaning is say that the largest user group is the "normal" one. If
> that is the case then we have clear feedback that the majority of
> users will want a high-level vocabulary for expressing common
> constraints. A smaller, more advanced, set of users will write
> constraints in SPARQL, JS, ShEx, etc.

As I stated earlier, I think it is premature to say what the majority of 
users will want. We haven't even published a FPWD, and some people may 
just add SPARQL to their OWL models.

But this division is reflected in our WG. Some people want feature A. 
Other people want feature A + B. The latter need to make sure that group 
A does not block them from getting B. *This is not a symmetric 
situation*, and this needs to be considered in the voting processes.

Holger
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 23:25:56 UTC

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