Re: ISSUE-176: Rules will not modify the data graph

ISSUE-71 is about validation that takes place within the SHACL 
validation workflow. If it were not, then it wouldn't be an issue and a 


On 9/4/16 3:13 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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]

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 5 September 2016 15:13:42 UTC