Dear Andy, sure, happy to join. I have to admit that I am still unsure whether there is really a *bug* in the specification (in the sense that it would be something that could be fixed by an erratum), or whether just what the spec describes something in an unambiguous way, but it is just not what people would expect (which indeed would need if we wanted to propose an alternative to change/re-spec).
I have to admit I couldn't follow the whole discussion but is there a mail/link which summarizes the issues (I am aware of the bnode injection issue, which more there are?) Thanks & best regards, Axel -- url: http://www.polleres.net/ twitter: @AxelPolleres > On 30 Jun 2016, at 13:40, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> 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/ > >
