Re: S30: PROV Constraints

Hi Simon,

I primarily mentioned this user story because it is a relatively 
well-known data model and W3C Recommendation with lots of constraints in 
it. It felt like our language should come as close as possible to 
represent their requirements. I have personally never invested enough 
time to fully understand the details, but thought it would be worthwhile 
to mention it to the group in any case.

And yes, I am aware that this story could also be used to motivate rules 
if the group agrees that this is worthwhile. As far as I understand the 
process, the WG is allowed to make small extensions to the original 
charter if there is sufficient interest. Since we have enough other 
controversial topics on the agenda already, I did not want to bring up 
the topic of rules yet (although I personally believe something like the 
ldom:rule mechanism should become a deliverable of this WG, because it 
is a very low hanging fruit once the rest of the syntax (and templates 
etc) are written up and we have tons of practical use cases for 
SPARQL-based rules).

Holger


On 2/2/2015 21:39, Simon Steyskal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> At least parts of the main intent of your user story on PROV 
> constraints[1] was to state the necessity of some sort of rule 
> mechanism as e.g. offered by LDOM[2], right? There is no requirement 
> relating to rules if I'm not mistaken?
>
> simon
>
> PS: I really like the idea of being able to express rules within a 
> shape definition, but I think this requires a lot of discussions ;)
>
> [1] 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S30:_PROV_Constraints
> [2] https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/#rules
>

Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 22:34:12 UTC