Re: What we voted on at the f2f

Interesting ... Where an how does this comes through in the spec? And what would need to be different for it to change?

One idea would be to simply say that while semantics are described in SPARQL, the spec doesn't mandate SPARQL based implementation. But I think something like this is already said in the spec.

Other ideas? 

Irene

> On Mar 26, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> 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 14:46:26 UTC