W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > February 2017

Re: behavior of SPARQL-based constraint components using EXISTS

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
Message-ID: <b86c1411-35ac-100d-0211-59adfc4d2186@gmail.com>
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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:48 UTC