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

In general, sh:valueShape would have to support nested constraints based 
on non-core templates. However, if an engine only supports a certain 
sh:Profile (e.g. the Core Profile) then it may throw a system error when 
it encounters templates that are outside of the profile.

Holger


On 4/3/2015 6:13, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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 22:51:39 UTC