Just to follow up -- I've been corresponding with one of the group
members and there is strong resistance to have SHACL be workable without
SPARQL. We are in a minority in preferring a non-SPARQL solution, so I
need ammo for this.
kc
On 7/2/15 12:37 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> I just got off the W3C call and it was a bit of a disaster, and I don't
> think I helped. So I need some advice on this, and I will try to clear
> things up in email to W3C group.
>
> Please look at:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0159.html
>
>
> and in particular at the diagram at the bottom. [1]
>
> You can see the options in the quoted email just above the diagram. I
> admit that I do not understand the import of this question, but it is a
> key one blocking the group. I do not know if this relates to the
> discussion we had today on our call (I'll send notes about that next) in
> which it was stated that for some purposes it does not matter how the
> validation routine forms or identifies a graph. However, it seems that a
> significant number of functions of SHACL may depend on the question
> addressed in this email.
>
> Any clarification in relation to DCMI requirements would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> kc
> [1] The issue for this is
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/47, but as you can see,
> there is a great amount of email, and much discussion has taken place
> under other subject headers, so I couldn't even give a full list of
> relevant emails, but they are too many to read anyway.
>
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|