Re: shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec]

Richard,

The target user audience of the high-level language is people who want
to use constraints, not define them. Defining constraints requires
more skill. Therefore macros do not belong in the high-level language.
They are part of the extension mechanism.

-- Arthur

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:19 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-28 (macros): Is the macro facility part of the high-level language or of the extension mechanism? [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/28
>
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 19:53:27 UTC