Re: shapes distinct from classes docs

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2015-02-05 10:17+1000]
> On 2/5/2015 9:41, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >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
> >
> >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/templatese
> >
> 
> Nice interactive example!

Thanks! I had stuff like that kicking around from tutorials, though in
fact I ended up rewriting all of it anyways. At least I kept the
javascript.


> The original LDOM proposal uses templates for the built-in
> vocabulary itself, e.g. every language element such as ldom:minCount
> is backed by a template. This makes the language very consistent.
> Some of the changes in your proposal break this consistency (e.g.
> ldom:choice).

Yeah, I think this will have to be worked out in the requirements for
algebraics.


> Having said this, it may be possible and useful to split the overall
> spec into smaller chunks, also to enable a notion of profiles that
> we'll possibly need if we cannot agree on a single mechanism. LDOM
> functions are a candidate for a separate document, because they
> could also be used by any other SPARQL engine without constraint
> checking.

See if http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/templates
is what you had in mind.

> The ldom:extension syntax looks unnecessarily complex to me, and
> should just stay ldom:sparql (i.e. the name of the property is
> enough to specify the link to the extension language).
> ldom:javascript could be another one. Clearly SPARQL should not just
> be an "extension" but a built-in part of the language.

I believe that SPARQL is about 10x the size and complexity of what one
needs to handle the stuff that's common to ShEx, Resource Shapes and
Description Set Profile. I hope that one can have a shapes engine
without having to have a SPARQL implementation.


> Finally, the topic of shapes and/or classes remains unresolved and
> requires further discussion. I still hope my proposal email https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0223.html
> will be considered.

Yep, I think we'll keep tooling on that for a while, but at least this
doc can be agnostic by just calling them shapes.


> Thanks,
> Holger
> 
> 

-- 
-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 14:49:59 UTC