- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 21:03:22 +0100
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Karen, > On 30 Mar 2015, at 18:11, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > On 3/29/15 3:49 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > This though assumes that you have control over the instance data, which is not always the case. So although this may work for some applications, others will be operating over data created by third parties who have their own data model. I mention this just so we can keep in mind that we have both situations to address. >> >> I don't follow. Why does the described design require that I have control of the instance data, and why wouldn't it work with third-party data? >> >> Richard >> > > Richard, I may have misunderstood your example, but the situation I am referring to is one in which you are unlikely to know what graphs are used in someone else's instance data, but you still need to validate properties and values. The current draft presumes that the data under validation and the SHACL constraints are in the same graph. I suggested putting them into separate graphs instead. In either approach, third-party data is easily handled by having a local copy of the data under validation. Or one can have things like virtual RDF graphs and virtual RDF datasets, where different parts reside in different locations. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 30 March 2015 20:03:49 UTC