- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:37:48 -0400
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Karen, As I said, the IBM Maximo/Tririga use case is about OSLC services and it is based on OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0. SHACL Core should be at least as expressive as OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0. The member submission describes those features and includes some extensions based on user experience [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/ -- Arthur On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > On 3/18/15 2:31 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:18 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >>> Again, I don't think we've defined a core, so speaking of core templates >>> to >>> define a view is a bit premature. This "SHACL Core Profile" that you >>> assume >>> that IBM would use, AFAIK, does not exist, and I'll turn to Arthur to ask >>> if >>> this is consistent with his view. >> >> >> Karen, >> >> The use case is based on how an existing product, IBM Maximo/Tririga >> is currently using OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0, which we can take as an >> approximation for the to-be-defined "SHACL Core". > > > Arthur, that email addresses the SPARQL requirement but doesn't given > anoutline of what requirements or features would be considered core. Are we > talking about the same thing? Is there an easy way to develop of list of > core functionality? > > Thanks, > kc > > This use case is >> >> described in the recent post by Amamitra [1]. The use case describes >> client-side validation in web browsers. The implementation is JS and >> allows the definition of custom constraints in JS. >> >> -- Arthur >> >> [1] >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0134.html >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 22:38:15 UTC