ISSUE-111: How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter?

charter issues

How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Peter Patel-Schneider

Opened on:

2015-11-05

Description:

Our charter says:

This working group will address the need for RDF data validation/interface definition on the Semantic Web. It will address issues like:

Defining and publishing a description of the intended topology and value constraints of nodes in an RDF graph, henceforth a "shape".

Verification of data integrity with respect to a shape.

Human and machine interpretation of shapes to develop or optimize SPARQL queries and develop user interfaces.


The working group has not yet described how what it is producing addresses these issues.


PROPOSAL: The Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL), as "a language for describing and constraining the contents of RDF graphs", meets all three of the issues listed in the working group charter. The high-level (or core) language described in Sections 2 and 3 of "Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)" (http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/) defines a declarative shape language that can be used to describe "the intended topology and value constraints of nodes in an RDF graph". Later parts of "Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)" provides extensions to that language for less-common constraints. The validation process described throughout "Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL)" defines "[v]erification of data integrity with respect to a shape". The high-level language can be used to "develop or optimize SPARQL queries" for checking shape verification. The high-level language can also be used for structuring some of the information needed for developing user interfaces by adding UI-specific information to shapes and constraints, particularly property constraints.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2016-09-23)
2. Editorial ISSUES that can be closed IMHO (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-09-23)
3. Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress) (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-08-31)
4. ISSUE-65 and ISSUE-111: Could IMHO be closed (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-07-07)
5. Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-28)
6. Re: Some ISSUE proposals for this week (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2016-04-27)
7. Some ISSUE proposals for this week (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-04-27)
8. shapes-ISSUE-111 (charter issues): How should the working group address the issues called out in the WG charter? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-11-05)

Related notes:

Display change log