- From: Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 09:42:56 -0500
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: <semantic-web@w3.org>
I just noticed that Dan already said this in his email. Sorry, Dan, but +1. Pat > On Jul 16, 2020, at 9:36 AM, Patrick J Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > Sounds like a task for SHACL, no? Ignore the nonsense about comparing it to OWL: it is a macro language for describing /syntactic/ constraints on RDF graphs. Doesn’t that give you the required atomicity?. > > Pat > >> On Jul 16, 2020, at 9:18 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: >> >> On 7/16/20 9:58 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: >>> I believe the big appeal of putting it all into the zone we call "literals" is that you get a kind of atomicity; that chunk of data is either there, or not there; it is asserted, or not asserted. With a triples-based (description of a ) data structure you have to be constantly on your guard that every subset of the full graph pattern is at least sensible and harmless, even when subsetting these chunks is often confusing or misleading for data consumers. I can't help wondering whether notions of graph shapes [ . . . ] could be exploited to create an RDF-based data format which had atomicity at the level of entire shapes. >> >> +1 >> >> IMO the ability to manipulate chunks of data atomically -- arrays, n-ary tuples and hierarchical objects -- is a key requirement in developing a higher-level form of RDF. This will include the need to conveniently construct and deconstruct such chunks in rules or query languages. >> >> David Booth >> > >
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2020 14:43:15 UTC