Hi Karen,
Thanks a lot! This sounds like a good plan. Looking forward to see Corey's use cases!
Cheers,
Antoine
On 6/2/15 7:09 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Antoine, and all -
>
> Corey and I talked about this. Here's a quick summary of the status of things:
>
> - the W3C SHACL (that's the name of the standard) document currently allows extensions in SPARQL and the proposal is to also allow them in Javascript. Any other extension mechanism would need to be written as an addendum to the standard (as I understand it). The reason for this is complex, but has to do with a view of SHACL that has a contained "engine" concept that vendors can adhere to.
>
> - the original ShEx standard had a mechanism that allowed the requirements language to shell out to any arbitrary routine.
>
> The latter is closer to what is needed for many existing applications.
>
> Corey will write up some use cases that testify to the need, including de-referencing, format checking (e.g. XML documents, MARC documents). Among the motivations is to make explicit to third-parties the actual applications required to process the data. (He hopes to do this by the end of his day today.)
>
> We should discuss this, finalize a statement, and I will present that statement to the W3C group (ASAP, before they go down the SPARQL/JS road too far) as a DCMI use case.
>
> kc
>
> On 6/2/15 7:04 AM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
>> Hi Corey, Karen,
>>
>> This is to ask you about the status of
>>
>> [
>> ACTION: Corey and Karen to write up cases of validation with
>> de-referencing or local caches, to be sent to W3C
>>
>> Corey: I thought we had done.
>> ... I had drafted something during a meeting
>> ... I thought it had been sent and they were not very interested
>> ... I will ask Karen for confirmation.
>> ]
>>
>> We still have R-171 [1] and R-171bis [2], but I believe none of these
>> were what Corey was after the last time [3]. It would be a pity to lose
>> an important requirement.
>>
>> Apparently Corey had written a short description at [4]
>> [
>> My question for the W3C group is whether their definition of "instance
>> data" includes local caches of remote resources. Example of LCSH on
>> id.loc.gov. Over 480,000 skos concepts represented, of which I may need
>> 10,000 in a local system, so I will use a separate triplestore or
>> something like Linked Data Fragments to cache. I have validation needs
>> around dereferencing these and confirming their shape. I also
>> potentially have a validation need on when my cache is invalid .
>> -- Partial answer: there is great discussion about how the Shapes
>> standard will define the extent of the graph over which validation will
>> take place. There is also discussion about extension mechanisms, e.g.
>> the ability to call arbitrary routines.
>> ]
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> [1] http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/286
>> [1] http://lelystad.informatik.uni-mannheim.de/rdf-validation/?q=node/455
>> [3] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/dcmi-ap-23-04-2015
>> [4] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/dcmi-ap-09-04-2015
>>
>
|