All,
There is a thread on the W3C Shapes list that I think is of interest,
but that I need some help with. It starts here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0509.html
The question is: Should the constraint language (shapes) and the
instance data be in the same graph? The discussion goes in various
directions, but what I want to hear from those of you who have workflows
in place is whether you could agree to a requirement that they must be
in the same graph.
If I'm understanding the discussion it seems that a separation of
constraints and instance data will be possible, but there seem to be
advantages to having them in the same graph. My concern is that the "in
the same graph" solution works well for well-contained enterprise data
but will be less suitable to the kind of aggregation use case that we
encounter in cultural heritage work.
Thanks,
kc
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|