Re: Selected problems with Proposal 4

Karen,

I think you and Holger are both saying that the clarity/understandability
of the user-visible syntax is more important than the metamodel.

So, making the user-visible syntax simpler and/or easier to use may serve
as a motivation for making some changes to it. But it is different from
changing the metamodel to have that be ³simpler².

Of course, in both cases, what option is simpler may be a matter of
preference.  

Or am I missing something?

Irene




On 3/10/16, 10:55 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
>
>On 3/10/16 3:10 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> 1) Proposal 4 is poorly motivated. As Peter stated himself, he started
>> this effort to simplify the metamodel. He made changes to the end-user
>> visible syntax in order to "simplify" the metamodel. However, there was
>> no problem with the end-user visible syntax to begin with. There was no
>> need to change it, and the new syntax is a step backwards. The metamodel
>> is far less important than the user-facing syntax.
>
>Simplifing the model is a valid motivation. Otherwise we wouldn't have
>suggested to have a ShEx user interface. As that interface may not be
>forthcoming, it would be preferable to have SHACL be easily
>understandable. Otherwise it can only be easily used with a UI on top of
>it, and that limits its use to those who have access to an application
>with an interface. I think that would be the death of SHACL.
>
>kc
>
>
>-- 
>Karen Coyle
>kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>m: 1-510-435-8234
>skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 20:02:31 UTC