- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:29:46 +0100
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> On 30 Mar 2015, at 00:11, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > We agree that the mapping between named variables such as "message" and corresponding property IRIs in the SHACL namespace (sh:message) is trivial. Yet I would turn your arguments around. By defining an RDF data model we get a lot of stuff for free without any extra work, including several exchange formats. For example if we leave the details unspecified, how would implementers know how to serialize the values - whether something is a IRI or a literal? My proposed constraint violation data structure is isomorphic to SPARQL SELECT results, therefore it comes with several serialisation formats for free. > I believe there is value in having a serialization format, and there will be value in being able to run SPARQL queries across the results of constraint validation. There is value in many things, but it doesn’t follow that this working group should be doing those things. This working group should focus on its charter and on the user stories. I don’t see those as requiring the ability to run SPARQL queries across validation reports. Clearly there are some cases where this ability might be useful, but I see those as fringe, and as an area where implementors can differentiate themselves by going beyond what’s mandated by the standard. > And you haven't shown how to represent path expressions yet. That’s shouldn’t be an obstacle to evaluating the proposal. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 08:30:17 UTC