- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:26:10 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 03/06/2016 08:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Thanks for the feedback, Peter. I have tried to address it here: > > https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/def77377ebf992a7dcde23e5eff1c74187385bd0 > > > More inline... > > On 7/03/2016 6:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] >> The document doesn't actually use SPARQL 1.1 as the normative definition of >> SHACL constraints and scopes. What it does is intersperse SPARQL with >> hasShape. A cleaner statement is needed here to clarify the role of SPARQL >> 1.1 in the semantics of the core of SHACL. > > I think this is already clear enough - sh:hasShape is mentioned explicitly. It > didn't state that "only" SPARQL 1.1 is needed anywhere. The document states This specification uses parts of SPARQL 1.1 for the normative definition of the semantics of the SHACL Core constraints and scopes. not This specification uses parts of SPARQL 1.1 *in* the normative definition of the semantics of the SHACL Core constraints and scopes. The wording in the document is too strong. peter
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 16:26:44 UTC