Re: shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec]

Arthur,

> On 2 Apr 2015, at 20:51, Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My expectation is that extensions are packaged in a seamless way so
> you can use them without being exposed to their implementation.
> However, that is not the same as being part of the high-level
> language. My view is that the high-level language is a fixed set of
> constraints defined by the WG.

So you are saying that things like this should be impossible?

  MyShape = 
     (propertyA maxOccurs 1)
     OR
     ((propertyB maxOccurs 1) AND (propertyB meets FooExtensionConstraint))

I’d argue that seamless packaging of extension constraints would *require* that they can be used just like the built-in constructs of the high-level language.

Best,
Richard



> 
> -- Arthur
> 
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:18 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-27 (extensions-in-highlevel): Can extension constraints be used in the high-level language? [SHACL Spec]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/27
>> 
>> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
>> On product: SHACL Spec
>> 
>> It looks like SHACL will be split into two parts:
>> 
>> 1) A high-level “Core/Lite” language consisting of things like cardinality constraints, datatype constraints, conjunctions and disjunctions
>> 2) An extension mechanism that relies on embedded expressions in a more expressive language
>> 
>> Do constraints defined using 2) become part of the high-level language, that is, can they be used in nested expressions like conjunctions and disjunctions? Or do they stand “outside” the high-level language and are directly associated with classes/individuals/etc?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:13:33 UTC