On Jul 28, 2014 12:08 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/27/2014 02:36 AM, Bosch, Thomas wrote: >> >> Hi Dimitris >> > [...] > >> Regarding ShEx: >> >> - I am also unconfortable with the un-typed validation but I also see the need >> to support it. Unless of course RDF somewhere specifies that every resource >> MUST have a rdf:type. This however should not be the primary focus of ShEx >> since it is not the common case. > > > [...] > > > I'm still trying to figure out how ShEx is supposed to be used for validation. I could make some guesses, but I think that it would be better for someone how was involved with ShEx to tell me. I'm guessing here from your exploration of ShEx that you see how one can verify a node in an instance graph against a start rule in a schema but you are unclear on why and when one would want to. My guess might be wrong so I'll just describe a use case at a high level and ask wait for you to ask specific questions. The XML world topically uses XML Schema and RelaxNG to communicate structural constraints which apply at a particular point in a process. A good example is WSDL which associates a service with a particular schema. This is used to generate code and validate the exchanged messages. LDP is a good analog of this in RDF-land. Resource Shapes uses oslc:resourceShape to tie an LDP service to a schema describing what graph shapes that service works with. <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/#resourceShape> The ShEx semantics are an attempt to formalize the apparent behavior of Resource Shapes to clarify, e.g. verification WRT a value set <http://www.w3.org/mid/53C917E6.7020701@gmail.com>. I may not have answered your question, but perhaps we can work from here. > peter >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:39 UTC