- From: Angelo Veltens via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 09:22:42 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
> SHACL is tempting, but I don't think using it directly into hydra's spec constructs is a good approach. Why not? It fits the purpose. Why should we invent another vocabulary that does the same things, just worse / not as complete as SHACL? > We've considered recommending SHACL to describe expected/returned data structures, but well ... it would be just a recommendation without imposing anything normative. That would be fine, but then there is no need to blow up the hydra spec with similar concepts. > Remember that while SHACL is a nice vocab that would fill the gap for non-RDF developers, RDF hardcore users would still stick to raw RDFS or OWL. SHACL is pure RDF, isn't it? So I can't quite follow why they wouldn't use it? Nevertheless my focus is on real-world APIs and helping Web developers to build better APIs using Linked Data, that are not aware of it's strength right now. SHACL is not only able to describe the expected data shapes, but also perform validations, which is really helpful. -- GitHub Notification of comment by angelo-v Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/pull/187#issuecomment-474750229 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2019 09:22:44 UTC