Hi Thomas,
Thanks a lot!
This is really interesting, and frankly impressive. I guess this comes fresh out of a thesis ;-)
I have a some very general questions:
- where are the 81 'validation requirements' coming from? Are they a superset of the DC ones [1]? Or the W3C ones? If it's W3C then SHACL seems to be missing a lot...
- are the results based on desk research or do you have a suite of 81 formalized test cases and their implementation in all these languages?
- when you mention OWL, is it wrt the 'traditional' OWL semantics or are you considering the 'closed world hijacking' of it?
Cheers,
Antoine
[1] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/RDF_Application_Profiles/Requirements
On 12/3/15 1:55 PM, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> [I'm reposting Thomas' mail in its own thread. I think it deserves it! - Antoine]
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> From: Hartmann, Thomas <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I conducted an evaluation to what extent the constraint languages SHACL, ShEx, ReSh, OWL 2, DSP, and SPIN cover RDF validation requirements.
> Attached you find the evaluation results.
>
> Many / Most of the DC requirements are included in this evaluation (although the wording may be different in some cases, since our database is continuously updated),
> but not all - i.a., the ones not approved by the W3C working group.
>
> I could walk through our DC requirements and continue this evaluation for the remaining DC requirements, if people think this is useful.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
> --
> Thomas Hartmann (formerly Bosch)
> M.Sc. in Information Systems, Ph.D. Student in Computer Science
>
> GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
> Social Science Metadata Standards
> Visitors Address: B2,1, D-68159 Mannheim
> Tel: + 49 (0) 621 / 1246-271
> Web: http://boschthomas.blogspot.com/
|