- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 06:57:16 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Richard, I have a hard time understanding how instance data can include its own constraints. I've always assumed that SHACL would be analogous to XML schema, with the rules/constraints separate from the instance data. My primary use case is aggregating data from disparate sources, some of which outside my control, and some which would be using different constraints from my own. SHACL would be used to determine if that third-party data meets minimum compatibility requirements of my application. This is different in some ways from XML because XML does not assume working with arbitrary data on the open web, while RDF does. XML documents that are based on schemas should include the address of the schema for the purposes of validation. An XML document without a schema is less useful, but no less an XML document, and one can apply a local schema against an XML document, or perform a transform, regardless of the schema used by the originator of the document. Can we develop SHACL such that 1) instance data can refer to relevant SHACL constraint statements 2) SHACL constraints can be applied to instance data "at will", that is that anyone can apply constraints to any graphs as needed ? kc On 3/28/15 1:21 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/30 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: SHACL Spec > > Some proposals assume that the data to be validated, and the RDF graph encoding the shapes, are in separate graphs. Others assume they are in the same graph, and rely on being able to access triples from the shape graph when validating the data graph. > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2015 13:57:45 UTC