- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 08:11:54 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 4/2/2015 23:25, Karen Coyle wrote: > Holger, this is indeed how I was picturing it. > > BTW, couldn't 4 be 3.3? It seems analogous to 3.2. Section 3 is currently about Property Constraints only. OrConstraint is about the general union of any other constraints, not only those related to properties. Holger > > kc > > On 4/1/15 5:50 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> Arthur suggested to me that it would be good to have a more visible >> separation between >> >> Introduction >> Section 2 - 6 (Core) >> Section 7 onwards (Advanced) >> >> I wish I could separate the Table of Contents so that it looked like >> >> * 1.Introduction >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction> >> o 1.1Document Outline >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-outline> >> o 1.2Overview and Terminology of Core Features >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview> >> o 1.3Overview and Terminology of Advanced Features >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview-advanced> >> o 1.4Namespaces >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#namespaces> >> >> *PART 1: **SHACL Core Profile** >> * >> >> * 2.Shapes <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes> >> o 2.1Shape Labels and Comments >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-labels> >> o 2.2Shape Specialization Mechanism >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-specialization> >> o 2.3Shape Constraints >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shape-constraints> >> * 3.Property Constraints >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints> >> o 3.1Property Constraints (sh:property) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints-property> >> >> + 3.1.1sh:allowedValues >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractAllowedValuesPropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.2sh:datatype >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractDatatypePropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.3sh:hasValue >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractHasValuePropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.4sh:minCount, sh:maxCount >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractCountPropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.5sh:nodeKind >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractNodeKindPropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.6sh:valueShape >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractValueShapePropertyConstraint> >> + 3.1.7sh:valueType >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#AbstractValueTypePropertyConstraint> >> o 3.2Inverse Property Constraints (sh:inverseProperty) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#property-constraints-inverseProperty> >> * 4.Disjunctive Constraints (sh:OrConstraint) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#or> >> * 5.Scope of Constraints (sh:scope) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#scope> >> * 6.Constraint Violations Vocabulary >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations> >> o 6.1Types of Constraint Violations >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-types> >> o 6.2Structural Violation Metadata >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure> >> + 6.2.1sh:root >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-root> >> + 6.2.2sh:path >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-path> >> + 6.2.3sh:value >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-value> >> + 6.2.4sh:source >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-source> >> + 6.2.5sh:detail >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-structure-detail> >> o 6.3Human-readable Violation Messages (sh:message) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#violations-message> >> * >> >> *PART 2: Advanced Topics** >> * >> >> **7.General Shape Constraints (sh:constraint) >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#general-constraints> >> * ... >> >> I do not believe ReSpec allows me to do that (does anyone know?), but >> I'd be happy to manually inject such intermediate headers into the final >> HTML before publication. It would also make it easier for us to state >> that we expect feedback on Part 1 as part of the FPWD while we could >> leave Part 2 as "informative" and unstable if we cannot agree on this in >> time of publication. >> >> Thanks, >> Holger >> >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 22:14:02 UTC