Re: shapes distinct from classes docs

On 2/5/2015 9:41, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> Last week, we discussed a version of LDOM which separates shapes from
> classes:
>
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates
>
> It also, as the name implies, has no templates. They're in their own
> document now:
>
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/templates
>

Nice interactive example!

The original LDOM proposal uses templates for the built-in vocabulary 
itself, e.g. every language element such as ldom:minCount is backed by a 
template. This makes the language very consistent. Some of the changes 
in your proposal break this consistency (e.g. ldom:choice).

Having said this, it may be possible and useful to split the overall 
spec into smaller chunks, also to enable a notion of profiles that we'll 
possibly need if we cannot agree on a single mechanism. LDOM functions 
are a candidate for a separate document, because they could also be used 
by any other SPARQL engine without constraint checking.

The ldom:extension syntax looks unnecessarily complex to me, and should 
just stay ldom:sparql (i.e. the name of the property is enough to 
specify the link to the extension language). ldom:javascript could be 
another one. Clearly SPARQL should not just be an "extension" but a 
built-in part of the language.

Finally, the topic of shapes and/or classes remains unresolved and 
requires further discussion. I still hope my proposal email 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0223.html 
will be considered.

Thanks,
Holger

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 00:18:22 UTC