- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 16:52:24 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
I don't think that the working group can get away without addressing this problem with SPARQL. As it stands right now, no implementation of SPARQL that I know of will implement SHACL because they diverge from the definition of SPARQL. peter On 02/07/2017 04:40 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 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 00:52:59 UTC