- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:24:21 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on 12/15/2014 04:18:41 PM: > I think that you mean that a shape program is something that contains > shapes/constraints, i.e., the top-level construct of a constraint language, > except that some proposals don't really have a top-level construct. I think of any proposed shape language as implicitly defining a virtual machine. The code for the VM comes from the "shape program", whatever that is. The VM+code takes as input an RDF graph (or maybe an RDF dataset) and creates some output, maybe just YES/NO, or maybe a, possibly empty, list of error messages. > SPIN constraints are always (I think) associated with classes. > However, there > is no need for a SPIN document to contain an ontology. I don't think that > SPIN can handle OWL ontologies anyway, only RDF classes. Perhaps I am using the term "ontology" imprecisely. The SPIN overview states "The SPIN Modeling Vocabulary defines a collection of properties and classes that can be used to link RDFS and OWL classes with SPARQL queries." [1] > In sum, one has to be prepared to have constraints/shapes not connected to an > ontology and not even connected to classes. I agree completely. That is the design of OSLC shapes. > PS: Is it really true that OSLC shapes define sets of graohs? Where is this > stated? This is implicit in how programmers use constraints. A constraint is either satisfied or violated. A constraint defines the set of graphs that satisfy it. [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/spin-overview/ -- Arthur Ryman
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 17:24:52 UTC