W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Ditching the Constraint Violation Vocabulary (was: Re: Anyone in support of CONSTRUCT constraints?)

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:47:19 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2GQf2qhtJ=JW5vuhMFx5x6Rf+UEKf4733vWMBPW7CA8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@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.

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.


> Richard

Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
Research Group: http://aksw.org
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 08:48:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC