- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:36:09 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/26/2014 8:14, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > I disagree that the majority of shapes would be global invariants. This depends on the use cases: 1) If the user wants to publish an "ontology" describing classes and their intended semantics, then I guess the constraints are meant to be global invariants. 2) If the use case is to identify instances that match certain patterns among sub-sets of all instances then the notion of stand-alone shapes can be helpful syntactic sugar, as an alternative to matching those instances in SPARQL directly. SPIN constraint checking so far has focused on scenario 1) while leaving scenario 2) to "normal" SPARQL operations. For example we have many SPIN templates based on SELECT queries that find instances with certain conditions. Holger
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 23:38:55 UTC