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

Re: Fwd: Re: Added Requirement: Static Constraints

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 06:50:46 -0800
Message-ID: <54C10E46.9070208@kcoyle.net>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Sorry, what I actually meant is: do we have a technology-neutral 
statement of this that can be considered a requirement? We can't word 
the requirements in terms of specific solutions.

However, at this point I've lost the original train of thought. it seems 
that we started with: Wherever property X is used, it can be used only 
once per graph.

That seems to me to be a convenient short-hand that can be defined in 
other ways, as Peter and Holger have addressed. If so, then this is a 
candidate for a macro in whatever interface is used.

kc

On 1/21/15 6:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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
> templates).
>
> Holger
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:50:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 January 2015 14:51:00 UTC