Re: comments on current version of SHACL document

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 09/16/2015 07:40:59 PM:

> ...
> This is not my understanding of how SHACL works. I believe the SHACL 
> spec always assumes that the shapes are represented in RDF, and in a 
> dedicated shapes graph, using exactly the specified vocabulary. If 
> someone wants to use another (compact) syntax then these syntaxes need 
> to be translated into RDF triples prior to execution.
> ...

Why? As long as the result is the same I don't see why an implementation 
would have to go through this step. This seems similar to being able to 
implement SHACL without using SPARQL. It's the result that counts. How 
implementers get that result is up to them.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group