W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sparql-dev@w3.org > April to June 2016

Re: Improving EXISTS

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 09:36:30 -0700
Cc: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <7542CD60-14E6-4F76-A112-F488708CEF54@greggkellogg.net>
To: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 4:40 AM, Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org> 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.

I would participate.


> 	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 16:37:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 30 June 2016 16:37:04 UTC