Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?) from Richard Cyganiak on 2015-03-31 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2015)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 08:56:36 +0100
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D0C53F08-5CDB-46B9-8570-E0A987B83AB5@cyganiak.de>

> On 30 Mar 2015, at 23:41, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> 
> We could defining something abstract but this specific data structure is quite limiting. 
> I would rather to return an RDF graph based on a limited vocabulary that people can extend than a fixed structure that can hardly change.

It’s not a fixed structure. It can be extended by adding arbitrary extra keys.

Flexibility always comes at a price. As long as it addresses the use cases, I’d rather take a less complex, less flexible approach.

Richard

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 07:57:02 UTC