Re: ISSUE-22: Proposal based on sh:hasShape

On 6/12/2015 13:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Changing the order of triples in a shapes or data graph document, or even
> just running the system again, might end up producing different answers if
> care is not taken in fleshing out this approach, even in cases where there
> is no negation or even disjunction.

Some specifications solve such issues by stating "the result is 
undefined if..." and we could probably do something like "... if the 
execution of sh:hasShape may lead to recursive calls with the same 
combination of arguments". This way we play the ball back to the user, 
but at least we have set the expectations.

I am certain this will not satisfy the theoreticians among us, but the 
world does not only consist of corner cases. There are lots of tree 
traversal scenarios (e.g. skos:broader hierarchies) where recursion will 
be an essential and safe feature.

Holger

Received on Friday, 12 June 2015 07:04:05 UTC