W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: Fwd: Re: Added Requirement: Static Constraints

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:24:08 +1000
Message-ID: <54C05F48.6030505@topquadrant.com>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 1/22/2015 11:16, Karen Coyle wrote:
> The question, though, is how one
> would express this without using SPIN 

I assume you mean "without using SPARQL"?

> - in other words, do we have a
> generic way to express this requirement? I think it gets back to how one
> defines to target of the validation. Because these two cases have two
> different solutions, should they be different requirements?

Any complex constraint expressed using SPARQL can be turned into a 
(SPIN/LDOM) template. This means that some experts can prepare 
high-level lego bricks for people who don't know SPARQL. The items 
mentioned under "Property declarations" are basically the most common 
patterns, and those should of course be built-in. We may identify other 
recurring patterns that should also be covered by built-ins (such as 

Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 02:27:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 January 2015 02:27:36 UTC