Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?

Hi Holger,

I would like to add an additional way to enrich the results of a SPARQL
query.
Examples are in [1,2] where below a SPARQL query we can request / inject
additional data in the results.
In RDFUnit I allow only the variable ?resource in the SELECT query (not
exactly but sort of) so most cases are already handled by the additional
variables you introduced in SHACL.
However this approach can compensate some of the expressiveness we loose
from CONSTRUCT and can add additional metadata in the results e.g. what is
missing in [3] or anything the user wants.

Regarding one of the problems in SELECT queries you mentioned
`-multiple result values in the same sh:Error (e.g. multiple sh:value)`
I think SELECT gives us more freedom to do what we want. In RDFUnit I group
multiple values in the same violation  (along with all other requested
metadata) by post-processing the results.
I am not sure if we all agree if multiple sh:value should be in the same
error or not (I think they should be grouped) but we can specify the
behavior we want later on.

Best,
Dimitris

[1]
https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit/blob/master/rdfunit-core/src/main/resources/org/aksw/rdfunit/patterns.ttl#L197-L206
[2]
https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit/blob/master/rdfunit-core/src/main/resources/org/aksw/rdfunit/autoGeneratorsOWL.ttl#L697-L701
[3]
https://github.com/AKSW/RDFUnit/blob/master/rdfunit-core/src/main/resources/org/aksw/rdfunit/patterns.ttl#L563-L567

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> As I didn't hear objections, I went ahead and deleted support for
> CONSTRUCT constraints for now:
>
>     http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-constraints
>
> The reworked section on SELECT also proposes a mechanism to express path
> expressions via naming conventions of result variables.
>
> Thanks
> Holger
>
> Diff: https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/
> 6ac0dc4e90f918845de9f1d3d8c1e353f230946b
>
>
>
> On 3/25/2015 9:54, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>> In further attempts to simplify the spec, Dimitris had suggested that we
>> remove support for constraints backed by SPARQL CONSTRUCT. Since we have
>> already taken out ASK, this would only leave SELECT queries.
>>
>> I agree that we should assume simplicity for now, and we could bring back
>> CONSTRUCT at some later stage when we really have to.
>>
>> Does anyone have concerns about this process?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas