- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 08:13:55 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I cannot follow this train of thought. According to that logic, the SHACL network prototol ISSUE-71 (that you seem to want) cannot be part of SHACL either. We should standardize what is *useful*, not because of some artificial boundaries. Rules are the most popular feature in SPIN, and here is an opportunity to make SHACL more useful at low cost. Rules are in the same category as other forms of entailment, which are officially part of SHACL, see sh:entailment. Holger On 5/09/2016 3:42, Karen Coyle wrote: > If it happens BEFORE the invocation of a SHACL graph/data graph > comparison, then it cannot be part of the SHACL standard. After all, > we haven't included the creation of explicit rdf:type statements > within SHACL. > > kc > > On 8/31/16 11:59 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> From the recent meeting minutes I can see that Ted remarked [1] >> >> long ago we decided that SHACL engines would be fed a graph which it >> would validate, and that SHACL engines would not change that graph >> before validation ... but this reverses that and re-opens many past >> decisions >> >> I agree with the previous decision and notice that the wording in the >> proposed section was not clear. I have changed the wiki page to clarify >> that the execution of rules happens *before* the data graph is produced, >> i.e. the data graph is the result of applying rules on some other >> "input" graph. Rules will not modify the data graph, but operate in the >> same way that other entailments are implemented. >> >> Holger >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/25-shapes-minutes.html#item04 >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 4 September 2016 22:14:28 UTC