- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 05:09:27 -0500
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2014-12-21 08:35+1000] > On 12/21/14, 5:29 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > >There are likely to be many ways that folks may want to select > >terms for verification, by no means limited to: by type (as in > >conventional SPIN), query (Axel's proposal), rooted graph (one > >option in most ShEx interfaces), every subject node (another > >option is most ShEx interfaces). Conventional SPIN and OWL provide > >a couple. > > As discussed previously, if we want comprehensive coverage of all > the different ways to select terms for verification, then we likely > end up with a language as complex as SPARQL. SPIN's global > constraints (currently attached to rdfs:Resource) are covering all > those cases with arbitrary patterns at the discretion of the user, > without having to create a new meta-vocabulary. These queries can be > made quite readable with the help of user-defined SPIN functions. SPARQL is one way of selecting nodes to be verified. It doesn't address e.g. efficient protocols which pass a rooted graph, node lists coming from XML or SQL, GUIs operating over a data API, etc. A useful standard will provide a representation of constraints which independent from any mechanism verifying conformance with those constraints. Note that publication of a schema doesn't require any node selection. > The selection of which constraints to execute happens via the usual > named graph mechanism. > > Holger > > -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 10:09:30 UTC