- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:35:11 -0700
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
On 4/29/15 3:21 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Hi David, > > the two dialects that the WG is currently discussing are > > a) SHACL Core (or Lite) - a high-level vocabulary for common things like > cardinality and value types (similar to Resource Shapes or ShEx) > > b) SHACL (Full) - the Core vocabulary plus the ability to fall back to > complex queries and macros (likely based on SPARQL) Actually, Holger, that's not how I am seeing it. Core and full are two "levels" of the same standard. David's description is how I see the different proposals, (there could be others), and all proposals could have a core and a full view. kc > > The spec draft at [1] calls these Core and Advanced features, and is > structured to allow readers who are not interested in SPARQL to stop > after the Core bits. > > Is this what you suggest? I am puzzled by your statement that ShEx is > more expressive than SPARQL - what do you mean by that? > > Thanks > Holger > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ > > > On 4/30/15 12:15 AM, David Booth wrote: >> It seems like there are two major camps in the RDF Shapes WG: (a) >> those who want a SPARQL/SPIN-friendly language; and (b) those who want >> a more expressive and concise language like ShEx. Has the WG >> considered standardizing a language with two standard dialects, such >> as was done with OWL? >> >> It seems to me that if there is a significant number of people who >> would (continue to) use ShEx -- either because of its additional >> expressivity or its conciseness -- even if the Shapes WG decided to >> standardize a more limited and verbose SPARQL/SPIN-like language, then >> that is clear evidence that a ShEx-like language *should* be >> standardized, perhaps in *addition* to standardizing a >> SPARQL/SPIN-friendly subset of ShEx, as a standard dialect. >> >> David Booth >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 22:35:40 UTC