W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Proposed change to the charter, section 4. Deliverables, Recommendation Track

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:50:39 -0700
Message-ID: <53DE766F.9090808@gmail.com>
To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
CC: "public-rdf-sha." <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
PROV is a complex recommendation.  The constraints aren't even done against 
RDF.  The SPIN solution by Paul Groth runs to 1340 lines.

I think that formalizing the PROV constraints in another constraint formalism 
would be a significant activity, and not easy at all.  This is not to say that 
this would not be valuable, but I don't think that making this a part of 
evaluation at this time is a good idea.

peter


On 08/03/2014 01:30 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
>  From my POV it would be more interesting to do a comparison in action by
> implementing PROV Constraints (http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-constraints/) in all
> proposed solutions (ShEx, SPIN, Shapes, ICV, OWL).
> I think PROV is a nice use case because it has a moderate complexity and can
> reveal weaknesses / strengths in terms of expressivity, readability &
> compactness. A plus would be to capture the constraints of the PROV ontology
> in CWA.
> Paul Groth already made an attempt to port these constraints in SPIN [1] but I
> am not aware if these are complete or optimized.
>
> In addition this would be a great contribution to the PROV community.
>
> @Arthur, Eric, Jose
> It would be great if you could shed some light in the actual differences
> between ShEx and Shapes (besides the syntax and the property group extensions
> by ShEx)
>
> Best,
> Dimitris
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/pgroth/prov-constraints-validator-spin/blob/master/python/prov-constraints.py
>
>
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2014 17:51:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC