ISSUE-28: Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism?
macros
Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Richard Cyganiak
- Opened on:
- 2015-03-28
- Description:
- It looks like SHACL will be split into two parts:
1) A high-level “Core/Lite” language consisting of things like cardinality constraints, datatype constraints, conjunctions and disjunctions
2) An extension mechanism that relies on embedded expressions in a more expressive language
It also looks like SHACL will provide a mechanism to define “macros”, that is, named entities that encapsulate recurring patterns, and can be invoked with parameters, and are then expanded into a full constraint.
Are they expanded into a high-level expression that is in 1)? Or are they expanded into an extension expression that is in 2)? In the latter case, using the macro facility would require support for the extension language.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-28 stating that macros are outside of the high-level language (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-07-28)
- Proposal to close ISSUE-28 stating that macros are outside of the high-level language (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-07-28)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-02)
- shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-03-28)
Related notes:
Resolution: Close ISSUE-28, as no longer relevant
See http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-shapes-minutes.html#resolution07
Display change log
