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 09:14:27 -0700
Message-ID: <55143063.4020301@gmail.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Because I view SHACL as a whole, not a core and some add-ons. Having a
separate specification of a core just invites problems in the relationship
between core and add-ons and raises the probability of the add-ons being
jettisoned at a time when replacing or fixing them is difficult.

Of course, if the high-level language was the entirety of SHACL, then, sure,
a document that solely defined this high-level language would be fine by me.

peter

PS: The analogy between SHACL and shackles sprung to mind when I was
writing this message. Shackles have to be designed as a whole or else they
may fail to work properly in many situations (you could actually use a bow
shackle without the pin for a few uses, but not very many), and I think that
SHACL also has to be designed as a whole.

On 03/26/2015 08:58 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-26 
> 08:39-0700]
>> Option c gets a -2 from me.
> 
> interesting, why?
> 
> 
>> 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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVFDBjAAoJECjN6+QThfjzl7wIAM0rc1/KeHzaqgy2n9Dsp6ot
ZHHpMUja1Ur7gl5VWz3DcCojCdzFlQYBuR1u3tb9hP/YgOinMZWmzNnfUAj1Nuu2
GDu1TZnB02nEJwZ7C2DECdAEYh2d7nGzy/d0XG1lbfMHO3eSTo6VyysXaC1h1tUa
8+qT/exeW57VV3wUdKg/mhM7lWBvmXNmT6dbUPHV8ZzVlvDKoHRcsrvoq3GVb6y3
C9ANFtkbhdCuLksIU0JEh+/rHPpVMFd+6FLgj4Vp1U36sT3GlLRgMtPtfcW5tfF/
a4vOWzcF54RH64cvR8T1/m7ie7NsrdJqZHcYB1RIFVsuv7S9wUpZnNZsQRrilZs=
=jMdQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 16:15:06 UTC

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