Re: shapes-ISSUE-18 (S35 examples): S35 needs to state what constraints are required

On 12/21/14, 8:09 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
> A useful standard will provide a representation of constraints which
> independent from any mechanism verifying conformance with those
> constraints. Note that publication of a schema doesn't require any
> node selection.

I need to better understand what additional requirements we need to 
cover here. Assuming that each constraint is a non-literal, do we need a 
mechanism that selects those constraints that shall be executed? For 
example, there could be a SPARQL query that returns all constraint 
instances for a given context, and the execution engine takes such a 
SPARQL query as a parameter. Or it takes a bunch of FILTER functions as 
parameter, and those FILTER functions could pick constraints based on 
some annotation triples or other characteristics. Adding such SELECT or 
FILTER mechanisms doesn't sound like a difficult thing to do. By 
default, the assumption would be that *all* constraints are executed.

Holger

Received on Sunday, 21 December 2014 23:09:30 UTC