Re: Proposal c)

* Holger Knublauch <> [2015-05-07 22:09+1000]
> On 5/7/2015 21:46, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >It's got SPIN templates, SPIN calling conventions (embedding
> >arguments in lists) and SPIN variable conventions (?this). None of
> >these things exist in SPARQL. To call them SPARQL is quite
> >misleading.
> Templates are an RDF vocabulary that is used by a SHACL engine. Of
> course SPARQL cannot know anything about SHACL templates or variable
> naming conventions or arguments, neither does it need to. SHACL
> still operates on SPARQL engines.

Are they different from SPIN? It seems like
describes them exactly.

> >We could invent a new name for SPARQL templates but SPIN seems
> >pretty accurate.
> What about "SHACL templates"?

The templating system is a general-purpose SPARQL function invocation
system which happens in this case to be applied to shapes.

> >>unfortunately a completely inconsistent and incomplete set of
> >>unrelated documents. Where did the content of chapters 1 - 6 end up?
> >>Does your Core Semantics document even have the same semantics? How
> >
> >Not yet. The core semantics is more complex and will require some work
> >to express in templates.
> Can we make this a bit more concrete rather than asserting that
> insurmountable differences exist? We need to make some real
> decisions in the next two weeks. Could you give me some specific
> pointers about which features of your language could not be
> expressed in templates, and where your definition of the core
> language differs from mine? Ideally can we look at some specific use
> cases, e.g. expressed as test cases with input and expected output?

A good one is multi-occurance. The original semantics for ShEx came
from Resource Shapes which didn't really say what happened with more
than one rule for the same property. (Probably failed, but it wasn't

> >  Note that the ShEx semantics started out
> >quite simple (basically Resource Shapes) and grew in response to user
> >feedback (e.g. multi-occurance).
> Where are those requirements written down and approved? What do you
> mean with multi-occurance?

described just above

> >  David Booth's proposal is to profile
> >out the intersection but I think we may be able to offer a more useful
> >language if we extend the templates to meet more of these use cases.
> For complex use cases we propose SPARQL instead of reinventing a new
> variation of it. A huge amount of cases can be covered quite
> elegantly with user-defined functions.

It would useful to characterize those, including whether they cover
things like multi-occurance, one-of (e.g. the usual
  (foaf:name) | (foaf:givenName+, foaf:familyName)

> Thanks,
> Holger


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

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, 7 May 2015 21:10:56 UTC