- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 10:50:39 -0700
- 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