On 8/8/14, 10:24 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > > > 3. OPTIONAL A specification of how shape verification interacts with > > inference. > > I think this one feel off radar. Did you see any support for this? > In general, constraint checking should not *require* inferencing. However, I believe we should make sure that the topic of inferencing does not get prohibited by the charter. If the WG decides there is a chance to improve the semantic web stack, then it should be allowed to do so. For example I do like the idea in one of the ShEx papers to use structural information to produce new output (e.g. XML trees or other RDF triples). Another example is spin:rule, which is in our experience tremendously useful for defining mappings between ontologies, and to calculate the ex:area of a ex:Rectangle from ex:width and ex:height. Once we have a mechanism to attach SPARQL and templates to classes for constraint checking, we could use exactly the same mechanism to define such production rules - it becomes a rather trivial addition that would keep the solution consistent. All this could go into a separate, non-normative deliverable, but we should not exclude it. HolgerReceived on Saturday, 9 August 2014 00:34:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:40 UTC