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

Re: Implementations without SPARQL

From: Anamitra Bhattacharyya <abhattacharyya@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:35:55 -0400
To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4A483307.B3C3A4F6-ON85257E13.004A8732-85257E13.004AB322@us.ibm.com>

yes I would agree on that. We need the js script to accept the json/json-ld
data structure as an input and validate it.

From:	Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
To:	Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc:	public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Date:	03/25/2015 09:00 AM
Subject:	Re: Implementations without SPARQL

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> So which client-side data structures are those people using? Do they
> JSON-LD and just leave them as JSON?


While the current IBM implementation is useful as an existence proof,
I think that for SHACL we should define an approach that aligns with
W3C and industry best practices. I think the simplest approach is to
define a JS language binding in which the RDF graph being validated is
passed in to a JS function as a JSON-LD object. The JS function body
can then access the JSON-LD object directly, or it can make use of any
RDF library through usual JS facilities for loading libraries. This
avoids the need for us to dictate one particular RDF library. We might
also provide a mechanism for declaring a set of shared JS libraries to
preload. JS developers expect to have freedom of choice of the
libraries they use.

-- Arthur

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 13:36:54 UTC

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