Re: another pass at shapes distinct from classes docs

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-02-06 06:11-0800]
> The document is getting a bit better, but it is still very rough.
> 
> A big problem is the example.  In situations where objects have types it is
> natural to use these types to control the constraints, and even to drive the
> entire modelling process.  In the example, what makes an object an issue?
> Is it an rdf:type link to ex:Issue, or is it two property-value pairs of the
> right form?  I think that if you want to introduce shapes unrelated to
> classes then you cannot have classes that mirror the shapes.  Like it or
> not, rdf:type is more equal than other properties.

I don't see this linkage in primers for XML Schema, JSON Schema, Relax
NG, Schematron, but oh well, I've added an explicit statement:
[[
The mechanism by which the instance data is associated with, or
validated against the a shape is not described as this point.

<span class="todo">This WG is expected to define ways to link instance
data to shapes, e.g. instance-shape, class-to-shape,
query-endpoint-to-shape, etc.  This document may include examples of
such linkages.</span>
]]


> Another problem is that the document is very unclear as to which world LDOM
> lives in.  Is it RDF or linked data?  LDOM can live in the RDF world and be
> applied to linked data, but if LDOM lives in the linked data world then it
> will be difficult to use LDOM outside of the linked data world.

Ouch, marketing impasse. Can we forget about this for the time being?

Some folks want to market this as Linked Data. Others say "it's just
RDF, damnit." In fact, I'm more sympathetic to the RDF crowd but I
don't think this is a real technical issue. If it's designed for RDF,
of course it applies to Linked Data. There are no rules asserting what
Linked Data (I have a mug, but I don't think it's authoritative) so I
don't think you can find anything that works for Linked Data that
doesn't also work for RDF. PROPOSAL: We don't need to resolve this
before FPWD.


> peter
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/06/2015 01:44 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > * Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> [2015-02-04 18:41-0500]
> >> Last week, we discussed a version of LDOM which separates shapes from 
> >> classes:
> >> 
> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates
> > 
> > I've edit a bit more heavily. Peter, can you see if the current draft 
> > works for you? I think I was able to remove notion of modeling without 
> > preventing folks who think of it as modeling from understanding the doc.
> > 
> > 
> >> It also, as the name implies, has no templates. They're in their own 
> >> document now:
> >> 
> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/templates
> >> 
> >> -- -ericP
> >> 
> >> office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
> >> 
> >> (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any
> >> purpose other than email address distribution.
> >> 
> >> There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout 
> >> which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
> >> 
> > 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 14:34:57 UTC