Re: comments on current version of SHACL document

I don't think the spec currently says anything about the compact syntax so 
there is nothing to fix from that point of view. I just question your 
claim that if such a syntax is used it needs to be translated into RDF 
triples prior to execution. It is up to the implementation whether it does 
such a translation or not.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 09/17/2015 12:52:38 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 09/17/2015 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: comments on current version of SHACL document
> 
> If we cannot even assume that the shapes are represented in RDF, how
> would the spec look like? We could not even talk about the property 
> sh:minCount or the class sh:Shape then. If you think this needs to 
> be changed, please propose an alternative. NB: It may require a 
> rewrite of the whole spec.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 9/18/2015 3:48, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> 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
> 
>