consider computational complexity

It would be nice for each new feature (or more realistically a bundle of features, i.e. Profile) to have some idea about its implementation and execution complexity.

Consider this scenario:

• a database of 1, 10 or 100B triples (data at rest), which are assumed valid (eg parts have been validated, parts are from a trusted valid source)
• a transaction of 1, 10 or 100M triples (data in motion)
• a shapes graph of 1 or 10k shapes. Shapes refer to both data in motion, and also data at rest.

How do you validate this scenario in a reasonable time?
That's a difficult question.

• Many implementations use in-memory models ("give me data files, give me shape files, I load them in memory and output a validation report").
  • I think all JS implementations are like this. Which is not efficient in the large-data scenario described above (@bergos , I'd love it if you prove me wrong!)
• SPARQL opens up a "door" towards "unknown" complexity. At least I'm not aware of work on assessing the practical complexity of SPARQL queries
  • If you need to run say 1M queries coming from SPARQLConstraint (part of SHACL 1.0 Core), that will ruin all efficiency
  • So much so that, a good advice is https://github.com/Sveino/Inst4CIM-KG/tree/develop/shacl-improved#use-complex-sparqltarget-but-simple-sparqlconstraint : to put the complex query in SPARQLTarget (part of SHACL 1.0 SPARQL), and only fetch output (ValidationReport) variables in SPARQLConstraint

Relevant issues:

• https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/242 that gives an example of constant-time shape and linear-time shape.
  But I didn't define it just for the low complexity: this would be useful in a SHACL profile for Modeling.
• https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/216 that asks for SHACL Profiles. Now I'll add "based on the complexity of features"
• https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/235 that removed SPARQL from Core
• https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/312 that asks for structuring the spec along profiles (and https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/issues/312#issuecomment-2716744035 that comments on complexity)

Start by reading linked issues 242, 216, 235, and 312, including the cited SHACL guidance. No file, test, or entry point is named in the issue; an agreed complexity model and clearly scoped profile or specification change would define completion.