Next call on Wednesday 30th of August and short report on previous meeting

Hi all,

We’re still working on the member extraction algorithm. On Wednesday the 
30th of August we’re continuing the conversation.

*Would it be possible to take this one at 14:00 instead of 15:00? 
*Please send me a note if this doesn’t work for you and then we leave it 
at 15:00.

Train of thought for the member extraction algorithm during previous 
meeting:

  1. Include triples in named graph that equals the tree:member object

  2. Using CBD on the tree:member object (starshape + recursive blank nodes)

  3. Somehow use the SHACL shape to go deeper than just the tree:member 
object.

The difficulty with point 3:

How to deal with SHACL conditionals: do we validate the full SHACL 
conditional in order to know which of the sh:xone for example is the 
one, or do we not validate it, and thus process it as if it’s an AND, 
leading to potentially too many HTTP requests done? Trade-off here is 
performance (we want to avoid unnecessary HTTP calls) vs. ease for 
developers. When choosing the latter, we can of course always document 
that using conditionals with TREE collections is not recommended, but 
then still it would

Further issues:

  * How to create an internal identifier for the set of quads that were 
extracted

  * Standardizing an iterator to indicate how far you processed a 
certain tree:Collection or LDES. This is an LDES issue, but Sander 
mentioned this could probably be generalized to TREE.

Kind regards,

Pieter

-- 
https://pietercolpaert.be
+32486747122