- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 04:45:14 -0700
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>, public-sparql-dev@w3.org
I would join. peter On 06/30/2016 04:40 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > There are bugs in the SPARQL specification with regards to EXISTS. The RDF > Data Shapes working group uses EXISTS, and other related mechanisms, in SHACL > [1]. > > W3C process for corrections is recognized generally to be inflexible. It > is normally to wait for the next WG to run and end which is a multiyear > cycle - that does not fit with the RDF Data Shapes WG timescale. > > Community Groups can publish reports. These are not W3C standards. They > do provide a way to record consensus or enumerate alternatives. This could be > used to supplement the SPARQL errata process [2]. > > A suggestion is to use the W3C Community Group mechanism to describe a > solution to this specific area in a timely manner. The CG would document a > solution and create tests to pass over to the "RDF Tests" CG [3]. If there is > no single consensus on one solution within the SPARQL community, including > implementers and users, we can at least document a small set of approaches and > note the approaches taken by implementations. > > Thoughts and comments? > > Please indicate if you would join such an effort. > > Andy > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/ > [2] https://www.w3.org/2013/sparql-errata > [3] https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/ > >
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2016 11:45:48 UTC