- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:18:36 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 7/29/2015 9:02, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I would say instead that the *most relevant* computer languages, e.g., SQL and > SPARQL, do not work this way. I believe that most users of SHACL will not see > that the connection to programming languages is so strong as to dictate how > SHACL works. > > In general, users cannot tell which constraint is most restrictive. In many cases they can. Why else do languages like SPARQL have ( ... ) brackets to control the execution order. According to your logic, those should be removed from SPARQL too. Frankly, I believe the whole point of opening this ticket was to try to make it as hard as possible for us to make recursion work - the execution order is needed for error handling there. I would prefer an honest discussion instead of hiding behind pseudo arguments. Thanks, Holger > This is a > job better done by the analog of query optimizers. Requiring a particular > order of evaluation will inhibit such optimiizations. > > peter > > > On 07/27/2015 05:27 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> ISSUE-76 [1] is about whether the order of AND and OR operands should matter. >> I believe the order should matter, because this is how most computer languages >> work and therefore matches the expectation that users can put the most >> restrictive operands first to avoid unnecessary evaluations. It also helps >> produce consistent results in the face of errors. sh:AndConstraint and >> sh:OrConstraint use rdf:Lists for that reason. >> >> Holger >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/76 >>
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 23:19:11 UTC