W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-130 (rdf dataset assumption): SHACL should not assume that the data graph is in an RDF dataset [SHACL Spec]

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:12:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a0EOJXLi5yBeBQSZ5--60jfPO1tx-5vzJ3Km1-8DYVWzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Found it, https://www.w3.org/2015/08/27-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03
the resolution does not say this but iirc the discussion (which is not 100%
scribed) was talking about bnodes and how they can be identified with a
remote call vs in-memory.
ARQ and Sesame do something clever with bnodes which is not the case for
all sparql engines but I am not trying to re-open the old issue, only
trying to close this one using that resolution

I propose we close this issue as: SHACL does not assume that the data graph
is an RDF dataset as addressed by the current editor's draft
This of course allows people to use datasets but SHACL doesn't take any
special care in this case


On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

> On 18/03/2016 18:38, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com>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
>
>
> The resolution that we made a while ago was to not require support for the
> SPARQL endpoint protocol. Note that this is different from the question of
> in-memory vs database. It means that implementations can still work against
> databases, e.g. via an API such as ARQ or Sesame (for which all major
> databases provide drivers for), while the SPARQL endpoint protocol is too
> limiting for what SHACL needs to do.
>
> Holger
>
>


-- 
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 Monday, 21 March 2016 11:13:12 UTC

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