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

Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 18:52:53 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJadXXKvBu0zFdhJ2OjoAY1z29KKBXBc1ZQnC37p5V+2QZitFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I was going to vote but reading the options, they are both options
reasonable, what worries me is if there is some hidden implication about
the relationship between SHACL and SPARQL.

If option a) doesn't imply that the high-level language constructs will be
merged with the SPARQL definitions, I would not have a problem if they are
in the same document but in separate sections.

However, if voting option (a) implies that the high-level language will be
tied to SPARQL as it currently is, the my vote will be against.

Best regards, Jose Labra


On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> Thank you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Software Group
>



-- 
-- Jose Labra
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 17:54:11 UTC

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