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

RE: A view from outside

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:52:19 -0700
To: "'john.walker'" <john.walker@semaku.com>, <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>, "'Lars Marius Garshol'" <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
Message-ID: <026601cfa88d$64240110$2c6c0330$@gmx.net>
On Friday, July 25, 2014 2:39 AM, john.walker wrote:
> Hi Lars, 
>   
> Based on what you describe about web services, it might be worthwhile
> to take a look at Hydra:  http://www.hydra-cg.com/

Indeed :-)


> Hydra doesn't cover the validation, but does allow to describe the API
> in a machine-readable way.

It's not primarily intended to be used for data validation but Hydra also allows you to describe which properties are required in a request etc. There are also proposals to include cardinality.



>   
> Regards, 
> 
> John Walker 
> 
> > On July 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all, 
> > 
> I'd kind of promised myself not to get involved in standardization again, but unfortunately my employer really needs an RDF constraint language, and the > direction of this group looks really worrying. At first glance, anyway. 
> > 
> First of all: I'm glad there seems to be rough consensus that the use cases and requirements are going to be written first. The initial list in the charter > looks like a good start to me. 
> > 
> There is one thing that confuses me, though. If I want to make a schema for my web service, wherein I declare that all resources submitted to it must be of > type foaf:Person, must have a foaf:name and a foo:email, and possibly one or more foo:phone ... then shouldn't the spec allow me to simply say that? 
> > 
> > That is, something like 
> > 
> > foaf:Person class, 
> > foaf:name 1 1, 
> > foo:email 1 1, 
> > foo:phone 0 * . 
> > 
> (Please don't get hung up on the syntax of this example. I just invented it off the top of my head in 2 seconds to ask this question. It's *not* a proposal.> ) 
> > 
> I'm confused as to why people seem to prefer solutions that are vastly more complicated. Could someone explain? Are the proposals less complicated than > they seem, or is there something else going on? 
> > 
> > Best, 
> > --Lars M. 
> > http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/ 
> > http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/ 
> > 
> >
Received on Saturday, 26 July 2014 04:52:51 UTC

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