- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:55:03 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/14/15 8:46 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >> > > would and should actually read and understand Z semantics or some > mathematical axiomatic descriptions, but would find SPARQL more > difficult to understand? I hope nothing that I have said could be read as support of Z semantics or mathematical axiomatic descriptions because I am not familiar with either. I prefer that standards be written in clear natural language. If there are formalisms that must be used, they should exist in addition to natural language descriptions. Many standards take this approach. In fact, the only place that I seem to have run into (incomprehensible) formalisms is in the OWL documentation. Everything else uses natural language (stiltified to be precise, perhaps) and examples. Even the SPARQL documentation takes this approach, so I don't understand why "formalisms" are assumed to be needed for SHACL. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2015 16:55:33 UTC