- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 08:03:55 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 5/24/2015 0:16, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Holger, > > Thx. Do you believe that the constraint cannot be translated into a > single SPARQL query? Yes, I don't think it can, because the "depth" of family relationships can be different in each scenario, and even SPARQL property paths would not help AFAICS. Holger > > -- Arthur > > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Holger Knublauch > <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 5/23/2015 4:16, Arthur Ryman wrote: >>> Your comments are valid. I think the article would be improved if it >>> included a real-world example too. To be convincing, the example should make >>> use of recursion in a non-trivial way in the sense that it could not be >>> expressed by your SHACL-SPARQL proposal. At this point I conjecture that >>> such an example exists. It would be very instructive to have an example that >>> can be expressed in something as simple as Resource Shape 2.0, but that is >>> not expressible as a single SPARQL query. If you already have such an >>> example, please share it. Otherwise I'll try to construct one. >> >> Attached is a SHACL version of the Polentoni scenario that Peter shared with >> the group a few months ago. Note the direct recursion in sh:valueShape. >> >> HTH >> Holger >>
Received on Sunday, 24 May 2015 22:05:55 UTC