Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS

• From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
• Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:40:24 +1000
• To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
• Message-ID: <284cac9e-c0f2-6fb2-dc22-b474c292893a@topquadrant.com>

I think this question is orthogonal to SHACL and entirely an issue of 
the SPARQL spec. If SPARQL 1.1 gets updated via an erratum then the new 
semantics of SPARQL would apply to SHACL too, just like they would apply 
to any other technology based on SPARQL. I don't see what we can do 
about that. As you may have noticed we have changed the SHACL spec to 
avoid any use of EXISTS.

Holger


On 8/02/2017 7:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> What is the behaviour of SPARQL-based constraint components that use EXISTS?
>
> Is it the broken definition of EXISTS from the SPARQL document?  Is it some
> particular fixed version of EXISTS?  Is it undefined?  Or is EXISTS not to be
> used in SPARQL-based constraint components?
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2017 00:41:01 UTC