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

Re: prospective charter for a shapes validation WG

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:34:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJadXX+3OWkB+So5r=EkJULXkS_-QL5SWnTFnBFpcbuT4ArxGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
I think RDF Data Shapes are not meant to publishers alone. The idea is that
they can be used as a description and sometimes a contract about the
contents of a data portal.

The producers can say that the data they are publishing complies to one
shape and the consumers can check before consuming it if the data complies
to that shape or not.

RDF Data Shapes don't promote a one-to-one model, it is more a
contract-based model where the shapes act as some kind of agreement between
publishers and consumers.

But the shapes don't even need to be the same for the producer and
consumer. In some scenarios, the producers can use one shape with some
constraints and the consumers can use that shape or a different one with
other constraints. As long as their shapes are compatible, consumers can
handle RDF data published with different shapes.

In my opinion, RDF Data Shapes can help data portal integration and
documentation in a similar way to Schema languages for XML while
maintaining the advantages of the RDF data model.

Best regards, Jose Labra

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 07/10/2014 06:07 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>
>> On 07/10/2014 08:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> I find part of Sandro's motivation rather dangerous.  I do not think that
>>> providers of RDF should be in the business of tailoring the shape of
>>> their
>>> output for eventual consumption.  It is the business of consumers to
>>> decide
>>> whether the RDF that they encounter is suitable for their purposes.
>>>
>>>
>> Very interesting.  That sounds like a business ignoring what customers
>> want or
>> a speaker never thinking about what the audience might want to hear.
>> Can you
>> explain this a bit more?
>>
>
> Sure.
>
> If as a speaker I tailor my words to exactly match the shapes that every
> audience member wants, I can only talk to very small audiences (less than
> or equal to 1, probably).  This is, of course, a speaker model, but often
> not a very good one.  If as a company I tailor my products to exactly match
> the shapes that every customer wants, I end up creating very many products
> (probably more variations of each product than I have customers of that
> product).  This is, of course, a business model that can be effective in
> some cases.
>
> As a publisher of RDF should I follow this route?  I say no!  More, I say
> that this is against the principles of the Web.
>
>
> This is not to say that there can't be situations where RDF is used in
> one-to-one settings, and it may be expedient for the producer to tailor its
> output to match the desires of the consumer.  However, these situations are
> likely to involve constraints on more than the shape of the RDF, for
> example requirements concerning precisely what is and what is not produced
> at a content level.
>
> It seems to me that remote SPARQL execution is a better model for this
> sort of one-to-one interaction, and that this model is not against the
> principles of the Web as there is a publishable RDF graph that the queries
> are performed against.
>
>
>
>  That said, there are reasons to have a mechanism for checking and possibly
>>> modifying RDF graphs.  This mechanism could be helpful in determining
>>> whether a particular RDF graph carries sufficient information to be
>>> useful
>>> for a particular consumer.
>>>
>>>
>> +1
>>
>>         -- Sandro
>>
>
> peter
>
>
>


-- 
Saludos, Labra
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 15:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC