Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015

My opinion on the topics under consideration and votes on proposals that may
come up:


SHACL FPWD
- publishing the other two documents is going to require separate reviews for them

Yes, on opening issues 79 to 82

ISSUE-79 - I don't see much benefit, but I also don't see a reason not to make
this change, so I would vote 0

ISSUE-76 - execution order should not matter
- having execution order matter prevents useful optimizations

ISSUE-70
- the issue has to do with whether
    ex:shape
     ex:property [
         sh:predicate ex:myProperty ;
         sh:minCount 1 ;
     ] .
is a legal shape. I say that if
  ex:shape2 ex:property ex:constraint .
  ex:constraint sh:predicate ex:myProperty ;
      sh:minCount 1.
is not legal then neither should the version with a blank node.

ISSUE-65
One problem with the current setup is the treatment of sh:valueShape.  It
appears that the scope and filter of the shape are both ignored, which seems
to be wrong, but it also seems to be wrong to consider them.  I think that it
would be better to have sh:valueShape not be a shape but instead be a
constraint.   (Then I think that the names of shapes and constraints should be
changed.)



peter

Received on Thursday, 20 August 2015 00:18:49 UTC