On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/16/2014 09:39 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> [...] >> > > I think you are right and Shape checking is more low level than constraint >> checking in general. However, I also think there are plenty of practical >> applications where one would like to have some way to declare the shapes >> of >> RDF graphs in a easy and automatically verifiable way. >> > > Now we may be getting somewhere. > > What are these practical applications that you think require shape > checking? > I think I already mentioned them in the previous email. They could be summarized as publish and develop RDF based applications, and consume and integrate data between different linked data portals. For example, I have found Shape Expressions are very helpful to specify the contents of the RDF graphs that I want to publish, so I can tell my team of developers that they have to produce graphs with those shapes...also, I have found that data portals documented with Shape Expressions can help consumers to know which are the shapes of the RDF graphs behind them. My canonical application for constraint checking is that I am writing a > program to consume RDF graphs, and I want to know that some information is > explicitly present in that RDF graph. For example, I want to know that > each graduate student has a university explicitly given and that that > university is a research university. I think I have already done some shape expressions for that example or a similar one in another thread...it can be done with shape expressions as long as you are interested in the shape of the RDF graphs that you retrieve... Best regards, Jose Labra > > > Best regards, Jose Labra >> > > peter > > -- Saludos, Labra
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2014 05:27:52 UTC