As you asked for "any other SHACL thoughts", I tell mine. To me, the importance of SHACL is not restricted to RDF, it applies to the whole realm of data validation. The basic abstractions (shapes, constraints, expressions) are not tied to RDF, not even to data graphs. In general, I am interested in any attempts to bridge the gap between graph thinking and tree thinking (XML, HTML, JSON, CSV, ...), and SHACL, when viewed in an uncommonly abstract way, would be a promising perspective. Hans-Jürgen Rennau PS: Some work - theoretical and practical - in this direction is described here:https://www.parsqube.de/publikationen/combining-graph-and-tree-writing-shax-obtaining-shacl-xsd-and-more Am Donnerstag, 19. Dezember 2024 um 10:18:46 MEZ hat Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> Folgendes geschrieben:
On 18/12/2024 01:53, Nicholas Car wrote: > The W3C has formed a second Data Shapes WG to extend and maintain SHACL-based > Recommendations (standards). > Please see the proposed Deliverables: > > - SHACL 1.2 Core > > - SHACL 1.2 SPARQL Extensions > - SHACL 1.2 User Interfaces > - SHACL 1.2 Inferencing Rules > - SHACL 1.2 Profiling > > - SHACL 1.2 Compact Syntax What do you want to see in SHACL 1.2? * Are there missing SHACL-Core constraints that you would find useful? * Do you make use of SHACL-SPARQL? * Do you find you have to use SHACL-SPARQL for simple tasks? * What do you think about SHACL compact syntax? * Would you use SHACL rules (SHACL inference)? * any other SHACL thoughts? I have joined the working group (as an ASF representative) and I'd like to hear what matters to you. Andy N.B. The working group github repo is: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes The WG is just starting up, the repo has the original SHACL 1.0 documents. https://github.com/w3c/shacl is the community group github area and has the draft input documents and many community-raised issues.
