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

Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:39:35 -0700
Message-ID: <55142837.1090601@gmail.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Option c gets a -2 from me.

peter


On 03/26/2015 08:36 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> [2015-03-25 18:36-0700]
>> There has been a lot (!) of discussion on the mailing list and I'd like
>> to get an update on where the WG stands with regard to the different 
>> approaches being proposed. I know this doesn't capture all the issues 
>> (obviously) and some will feel that this isn't the right question but
>> at least this is one point of contention that we need to address so,
>> please, bear with me.
>> 
>> Rather than doing this just on a teleconference I set up a wiki page so
>>  that who can't attend the teleconference can still respond: 
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Strawpoll_On_Approach
> 
> The choices listed there are:
> 
> a. 1 doc: (vocab, extensions, semantics) with profiles b. n docs: 1
> vocab, 1+ for extensions, semantics
> 
> I have the impression that folks wanted the core semantics, with or 
> without SPARQL, separated from the templates and SPARQL extensions:
> 
> c. SHACL shall be made of multiple documents: one document which only 
> defines the higher-level language constructs (provides semantics), and
> other documents which define the rest: templates and extension 
> mechanism.
> 
> As W3C Staff, this would be my preferred approach as it allows core to 
> proceed to REC without dependencies on (i.e. multiple interoperable 
> implementations of) templates and SPARQL integration.
> 
> 
>> Thank you. -- Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web
>> Technologies - IBM Software Group
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVFCg3AAoJECjN6+QThfjz4zYH/0MrURI9yx4+HzTxi1QnZ3+q
FNTRdcI+aaSg8bwurNI1Tcv1VtYhYIlOQ9E54bLaqNJbuXVaXKw2xKqfmcXbQKRU
ahGzJZQrvq7tIXnYPhpgShvwoYrj8uKUHaZWniBHJTfstnO1d4HGeCGAzOYJfuaN
h11DOtuJ6igfMD8/yh+Rbdx1XqoDeXMg4fJ4OunVxCwSu0+wepcBb4+LDla64Mji
NyDfEGj3lg9mmKo2ztbelNeIVvzTy+0i/mDLh7u5+FYYf13PSZ0d2zVBzm/tTg8L
GxN3V0V3lnrYMcSk/8nOm2JwT0/KcPB2741qDACuXbfqseZRl42Q5kC0rec2JdU=
=A5p7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 15:40:47 UTC

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