On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > > > 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. > A table-like data structure is limited to accept only tabular data. Just adding extra keys is not enough, we 'd also need a way to associate keys to 'something' and we would have to disambiguate this 'something' between different shapes or different shape facets/SPARQL queries. > Flexibility always comes at a price. As long as it addresses the use > cases, I’d rather take a less complex, less flexible approach. > This can be considered a fundamental part of SHACL. Any design choices we make now may affect the ability to improve/revise SHACL in the long-run. I wonder what the other WG members think about this. Dimitris > > Richard > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Research Group: http://aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 08:48:15 UTC