- From: Asbjørn Ulsberg via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:55:47 +0000
- To: public-hydra-logs@w3.org
Although I agree with @tpluscode in that SHACL solves the problems Hydra tries to solve better, I also have to agree with @serialseb here. We are specifying the Core vocabulary of Hydra, which I think implies being as concise and free of dependencies as possible. Instead of baking in any defaults for schema and shape validation, it would be great if Hydra Core allowed extension points that could be implemented by SHACL, OWL, JSON Schema, Relax NG, XSD or any other schema mechanism. I'm not even sure Hydra should provide its own MVP schema language out of the box, or simply define that as out of scope for the Core specification and delegate it to one of possibly many extension specifications. An extension specification that bridges SHACL and Hydra would get my vote, though. And I do think such a spec could be embraced as an official recommendation for a "Hydra Standard Profile" (a spec that defines which extensions to prefer for each of Hydra's extension points), but not as a requirement for Hydra Core. Thoughts? -- GitHub Notification of comment by asbjornu Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/214#issuecomment-633609851 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 25 May 2020 14:55:49 UTC