- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:56:34 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
How can this Working Group address a problem in SPARQL? And why should implementations of SPARQL implement SHACL? Holger On 8/02/2017 10:52, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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 00:57:10 UTC