- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:43:29 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 2/19/2015 17:55, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Arthur, > > You said in yesterday's F2F discussions that you think of shapes as being evaluated against an RDF Dataset, not just a single RDF graph. > > Are there recorded user stories or use cases, or any other documentation, that motivate the necessity for this? > > My thinking so far was that validating single graphs is sufficient but I’d be happy to be convinced otherwise. The EPIM user story [1] mentions that some constraints need to rely on background data stored in other named graphs (e.g., "NPD fact pages"). Overall I believe the evaluation needs to start with a default graph, but something like the SPARQL GRAPH keyword should be supported. Holger [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/EPIM_ReportingHub > > Richard
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2015 23:44:51 UTC