Re: What we voted on at the f2f

On 3/24/15 10:18 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.

I'm fine with "however" as long as it remains a by-product, but it does 
at times seem to be treated as an actual goal. That is, I believe, the 
crux of the issue.

kc

>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 14:32:28 UTC