- From: Dani Fdez via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:31:20 +0000
- To: public-shex-dev@w3.org
Hmm I'm not sure whether adding the requirement of SPARQL seems problematic from a strategical/feature point of view, or from the point of view of maintaining a simple grammar. Talking purely about features, enabling extensions sounds nice to me, but maybe not as urgent as merely enabling SPARQL. I mean, once you can write actual SPARQL queries you've got all the flexibility one may need to associate any group of nodes with a shape label, and that's a syntax that will be probably familiar to anyone wanting to write a shape map. If it's just SPARQL indicated with the SPARQL keyword, as in your example, then those potential conflicts with a registry are gone for the moment. I imagine other extensions could be useful for specific cases too, but I picture them mostly like workarounds to avoid complex queries. But maybe I'm thinking too obtuse here... -- GitHub Notification of comment by DaniFdezAlvarez Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/shexSpec/shape-map/issues/22#issuecomment-1044294070 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 18 February 2022 10:31:21 UTC