- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:04:18 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
One technique of moving forward with conflicting proposals is to include them all, but into different dialects. This was done by many other W3C groups before, and while unpopular, may be the only achievable solution once again. We did this before by introducing SHACL Core and SHACL with SPARQL extensions. I'd be OK with some variation of Arthur's proposal to ISSUE-92 if we make it non-mandatory, just like the SPARQL extensions are not mandatory. The cost of implementing the partitioning is high (both for engines and UI tools), and performance will likely be slow too. It also isn't a use case that I have encountered often, and a work-around to use SPARQL already exists. What do others think? Holger
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 21:04:51 UTC