- From: Jeen Broekstra <jeen.broekstra@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:32:14 +1200
- To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org
Like others I haven't yet fully gotten my head around the nature of the problem (still catching up on my mails after holiday), but I am keen to help out where I can. Cheers, Jeen On 30/06/16 23:40, 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 Friday, 1 July 2016 03:32:49 UTC