Re: shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to introduction? [SHACL Spec]

Hi!

> I have so far not emphasized the aspect of shape selection because it
> was a controversial topic (you certainly remember the Class-vs-Shape
> discussion which is still not completely resolved)

Yes, I know ;)

> In our brief collaboration on the primer, Eric was very keen on 
> introducing Shapes
> without relying on either selection mechanism - because the validation
> could also be triggered by custom mappings outside of the RDF data
> model.

The creation of this issue was actually motivated by many requests I 
received from colleagues of mine who had a look at the specification.
Besides the general consensus of SHACL being a valuable addition to the 
SW stack, they were primarily worried to what extent they have to adapt 
their already existing RDF data in order to support SHACL. So they were 
skimming through the document looking for some actual code examples and 
before they got to section 11.1 they bothered me ;)

> So my question is, what is missing to make this clearer? Could you
> propose alternative prose for this aspect?

I would just append the examples of 11.1.1 and 11.1.2 (or at least one 
of them and refer to 11.1 for a more detailed discussion) to the 
paragraph you cited.

But that's just my 2 cents.

cheers,
simon


---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2015-04-02 02:26, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
> Hi Simon,
> 
>  I have so far not emphasized the aspect of shape selection because it
> was a controversial topic (you certainly remember the Class-vs-Shape
> discussion which is still not completely resolved). In our brief
> collaboration on the primer, Eric was very keen on introducing Shapes
> without relying on either selection mechanism - because the validation
> could also be triggered by custom mappings outside of the RDF data
> model.
> 
>  Having said this, the introduction [1] currently has the following
> paragraph:
> 
>  "One of the operations [2] that SHACL engines should support
> validates that a given RDF node matches a given shape. This operation
> can be invoked based on any control logic, i.e. applications can pick
> their own mapping between RDF nodes and their shapes. SHACL also
> provides two mapping mechanisms based on the RDF triples in the graph
> being validated. Current proposals for these mechanisms include
> selection based on sh:nodeShape and rdf:type triples."
> 
>  So my question is, what is missing to make this clearer? Could you
> propose alternative prose for this aspect?
> 
>  Thanks
>  Holger
> 
>  [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction [3]
> 
>  On 4/1/2015 19:20, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
>> shapes-ISSUE-33 (Simonstey): Shifting section "Shape Selection" to
>> introduction? [SHACL Spec]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/33 [1]
>> 
>> Raised by: Simon Steyskal
>> On product: SHACL Spec
>> 
>> Information on how to associate shapes with resources/data they
>> constrain is imho very crucial and should be part of the
>> introduction rather than being placed somewhere at the end of the
>> specification.
> 
> 
> 
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/33
> [2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#operations
> [3] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 06:18:25 UTC