- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:16:01 -0800
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The implicit connection here appears to be outside the scope of RDF. If this connection is a vital part of the story, then I don't think that the story is in scope of the working group. peter On 12/19/2014 08:10 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote: > ericw3c@gmail.com wrote on 12/18/2014 01:44:15 PM: > >>> Yes, this means that OSLC resource shapes can only describe OO-like >>> connected graphs. That is a limitation which I pointed out in [1]. I > hope >>> this WG will define a spec that can handle disconnected graphs. >> What are some examples of when this is needed? >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/shapes/#disconnected-graphs >>> >>> > > Eric, > > I provided a user story to illustrate a real-world example of a > disconnected graph [1]. This example is written in JSON-LD. The designer > of this resource made the point that we need to appeal to the new wave of > developers who have adopted JSON for data interchange. Those developers > want simple, uncluttered formats. The original design used plain old JSON. > I advocated for the use of JSON-LD by demonstrating that it didn't require > too much extra clutter. Adding explicit links between the > acc:AccessContexList node and the acc:AccessContext nodes would make the > graph connected, but those nodes are already implicitly related by virtue > of being in the same graph, so why add the clutter? > > [1] > https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S35:_Describe_disconnected_graphs > >
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 18:16:32 UTC