On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > If it is always possible to construct the dataset, then I don't see a > problem > either. However, is this always possible? For example, a user who is just > trying to validate a graph may not have permissions to create or modify a > dataset. > iirc there was a resolution on supporting only in-memory validation (not my favorite and cannot find it), e.g. full shacl may not run on remote datasets e.g. sparql endpoints. With this in mind an implementation could just copy the shapes & data graph in memory and perform the validation there > > peter > > > On 03/17/2016 04:50 PM, Tom Johnson wrote: > > That seems okay to me. In this case, wherever the SHACL spec refers to a > > Dataset, the main requirement should be that it is clear how the > referenced > > Dataset is constructed from the Shapes graph and the Data graph. The main > > point of the specs use, then is that a SHACL validation requires two > graphs: > > shapes & data. All of the rest of the handling re: SPARQL Datasets can > then be > > abstracted away by implementers if desired. > > > > - Tom -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http:// http://aligned-project.eu Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Friday, 18 March 2016 08:39:10 UTC