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

Re: STRAWPOLL on Approach for SHACL

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:22:05 -0400
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150326182203.GA9817@w3.org>
* Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2015-03-26 17:11+0000]
> 
> > On 26 Mar 2015, at 15:36, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> As W3C staff, what obstacles do you foresee on the road to REC for templates and SPARQL integration, that motivate this preference?

The core is substantially smaller than the one with templates and
SPARQL. There appear to be implementors who will implement core (it's
possible that ShEx implementations are in fact SHACL core
implementations, modulo parsing the structures out of the RDF), who
are unlikely to implement SPIN templates or SPARQL. Defining a SPARQL
templates module would pave the way for the modularity required to
define an e.g. javascript module or someOrg:ourSpecialModule.


> Thanks,
> Richard

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 18:22:13 UTC

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