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

Re: The NoSPARQL use case

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:04:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAApBiOnZMdsKqr7Mf5SKxa1fxcGcWdn=e7hbSbQ8tWLy9f_9cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Richard,

One interesting use case for a non-SPARQL implementation is to
validate input forms in a web browser using Javascript. This is
important for Linked Data POST and PUT operations. This would only
apply to constraints defined in the high-level vocabulary (occurs,
range, allowed values, etc.).

However, I still see SPARQL as playing a central role.

The semantics of the high-level vocabulary should be defined in terms
of SPARQL, which means that SPARQL can in fact be readily used as an
implementation.

There should be an extension mechanism that allows SPARQL as an
extension language. It should be possible to define SPARQL templates
so shape authors that do not know SPARQL can reuse the SPARQL
constraints. The high-level vocabulary should be implementable as
templates, i.e. the template mechanism should provide a seamless
extension mechanism.

-- Arthur

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> It may be that S4 is hard to satisfy without recursive shape recognition.  I
> don't believe that the part of S4 you quote has anything to do with
> recursive shape recognition, but other parts may.
>
> However, that doesn't mean that recursive shape recognition will end up in
> SHAQL.  If there is no specification for recursive shape recognition that
> the working group can approve then recursive shape recognition won't end up
> in SHAQL, and I believe that there is as of yet no proposal for recursive
> shape recognition that would be approved by the working group.
>
> peter
>
> PS: There are proposed solutions for S4 in both OWL constraints and SPIN.
>
>
>
> On 03/02/2015 08:21 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-02
>> 07:06-0800]
>>> If there are requirements that go beyond SPARQL then the working group
>>> is going to have to provide a specification for them that is acceptable
>>> to the working group and evidence of implementability of the
>>> specification.
>>>
>>> I don't think that this has been done for recursive shape recognition.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S4:_Issue_repository
>>
>>
> [[
>> Any node in the graph may serve multiple roles, e.g. the same node may
>> include properties for a SubmittingUser and for an AssignedEmployee. ]] I
>> think this is hard to satisfy without recursive shape recog.
>>
>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/01/2015 01:19 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> One you have identified the language constructs you have to
>>>> implement them. SPARQL by itself is not enough as it doesn't handle,
>>>> for example, recursion so there is a need for something else.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>> -- -- Jose Labra
>>>
>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU9JotAAoJECjN6+QThfjz+00IAKTDuueMNIgRGPM59U83sgT7
> mebY9uE1hb3SUBZ/KDqjr/E7cIkBEZNTKFIrabvDBVCxBNVvdX256XalRrUlGpYf
> DPRW0DgeUezUIOgfTFEc975k8Ve07hq/lp1DVVd5CXOxagtsLBafSsNTpQKVZEvD
> lXMete9C1VDuMgYNwb445V2GgNZIxiNe0sfdCZyDdRvvEsPbRCpuQgODA8JosBNd
> qua/Z5GK6F5kM0RD66g9/pYlV3f1ckv+bduZK0+SMlqfvxjoLPvLiWCRieVoOClI
> ys3x6Kh/H0BmRWjddSGq44xpEM3oYOF1scT3Ol3aJxAhl9i+qf71My/crWfXUWg=
> =gjXh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2015 20:05:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC