Re: Union operations on graphs

Thanks for the suggestion, it is added here
<https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/c3623aa6b5b4809b4eb2df3b0be32650b2dd7646>
.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is getting better.
>
> However, it still appears possible that running a SHACL processor in an RDF
> store could change the proto-shape graph or the proto-data graph.   I
> expected
> wording something like:
>
> SHACL processors MUST NOT change the graphs that they use to construct the
> shapes graph or the data graph, even if these graphs are part of an RDF
> store
> that allows changes to its stored graphs.  SHACL processors MAY store the
> graphs that they create, such as a graph containing validation results, and
> this operation MAY change existing graphs in an RDF store, but not any of
> the
> graphs that were used to construct the shapes graph or the data graph.
> SHACL
> processing is thus idempotent.
>
>
> peter
>
>
>
> On 09/24/2016 06:53 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> > Hi Peter and thank you for your feedback
> >
> > I tried to work further on this here
> > <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/
> 339b655f82463161b954684ea205b3c67fb483e8>,
> > let me know if this resolves the issue.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dimitris
> >
> > On Friday, September 23, 2016, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com
> > <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 23/09/2016 11:36, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >
> >
> >             union operations on data graphs and shapes graphs
> >
> >             It is unclear just what the data graph and the shapes graph
> are.
> >             There is
> >
> >         wording that both of these cannot be changed. However, there is
> also
> >         wording
> >         that various kinds of union operations are to be performed on
> shapes and
> >         data graphs.
> >
> >                  Comment (HK): The only place I could find "union" was
> about
> >             handling
> >
> >         of owl:imports, which states that the result of this union is
> used as
> >         shapes
> >         graph. This looks OK to me. Could you clarify what you mean?
> >
> >                  Comment (DK): I tried to make the wording clearer here:
> >
> >         https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/
> b6fd2db5719cc9c9bdec464acdd2aefc8d0b5b68
> >         <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/
> b6fd2db5719cc9c9bdec464acdd2aefc8d0b5b68>
> >
> >         I don't find this much better.  If the shapes graph and the data
> graph
> >         cannot be changed then there should not be wording about
> unioning,
> >         extending, or otherwise modifying the shapes graph or the data
> graph.
> >
> >
> >     Dimitris, do you have time to revise this further? I guess we need
> to find
> >     a different term than "shapes graph" for the originally supplied
> graph.
> >     The real shapes graph may be the one that is the output of the
> transitive
> >     closure process.
> >
> >     Thanks
> >     Holger
> >
>
>


-- 
Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT