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

Re: is there an implementation of Shape Expressions that correctly handles recursive shapes?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 03:08:15 -0700
Message-ID: <5512890F.7040208@gmail.com>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Hash: SHA1

Exploring all the possible models is potentially exponential in the size of
the data graph.  Someone is going to have to come up with an optimized
method for exploring this large space of options.

One way of overcoming the problems of recursive shapes is just to forbid
them.  This is the solution that I currently prefer.


On 03/25/2015 12:02 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-24
> 15:28-0700]
>> I don't think that the fix is to add extra explanation here.
>> Based on my analyses, the problem is with two of the three formal 
>> specification of Shape Expressions. Any implementation of either of
>> these two specifications is going to be problematic. Based on a bit of
>> testing it appears that the Fancy ShEx Demo is based on an
>> implementation of the axiomatic semantics.
> If the goal is to match the users' expectations, I would expect that 
> exploring all possible models would do that. For instance, if we say ex:b
> matches <T> iff ex:c fails <T> ex:c matches <T> iff ex:b fails <T> ,
> we've covered the possible solutions. An alternative is to say that ex:b
> matches <T> ex:c matches <T> because they don't pass in all models. By
> tracking the node/shape pairs involved in a particular solution, I think
> we can cheaply explore the permutations of A iff !B. If this doesn't
> appeal, what do you propose is a good answer to your dilema?
Version: GnuPG v2

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:08:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC