Re: shapes-ISSUE-30 (shape-and-data-graphs): Are shapes and data in the same graph? [SHACL Spec]

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