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

Re: Fwd: Re: Added Requirement: Static Constraints

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:23:35 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJadXXKV4NB1GuS3GGydXBMKCayTsDnPjf_R74J5Uhc3Wq-bsA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I have edited the requirements document with some comments and objections.
In the case of static constraints, I said that I didn't like the name
"static" and maybe, a more intuitive name, like "global" constraints, could
be more descriptive.

But apart from that, I think a more technology neutral way to describe what
the requirement means is the selection of which nodes are affected by a
constraint description. Which in the case of "static constraints" means all
the nodes.

One possibility is that the nodes affected are those nodes that are
instances of some specific class (which I think is the default possibility
in SPIN), another possibility is all the nodes ("static constraints") and
another one is to select one specific node (which was also added as another
requirement [1].

I grouped those possibilities in a section titled "Selection of nodes" [2]
where I included the
the three possibilities as three different requirements.

I hope this clarifies the requirements in a more technology neutral way...

[1]
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Evaluating_Constraints_for_a_Single_Node_Only
[2] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Selection_of_nodes

Best regards, Jose Labra


On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Saludos, Labra
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2015 17:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 January 2015 17:24:36 UTC