- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:18:01 -0500
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Arnaud <lehors@us.ibm.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>, Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Message-ID: <CANfjZH1_Zhh_O_aYQFYjcuGk-1qW9e=antLP+xucW_RABWxUww@mail.gmail.com>
On Feb 11, 2015 5:23 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/11/2015 07:39 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: > > > [...] > >> I think the core definition syntax can be orthogonal to both issues. > >> IBM Resource Shapes > > Resource Shape the submission to W3C? > http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-shapes-20140211/ > Or OSLC Resource Shape in open-services.net? > Or something different? > > I'll assume the first for now. > > >> is an example that handles both scoped & unscoped constraints already. > > Well, maybe. I'm still finding it very hard to figure out just what > Resource Shape is supposed to be doing. I understand ShExC, and I > understand how you could use some of the vocabulary described in the W3C > submission to control ShExC (maybe not the same way that is used in Resource > Shape), but I get horribly confused when I read papers like OSLC Resource > Shape: A language for defining constraints on Linked Data > http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2013/papers/ldow2013-paper-02.pdf > > > > By the way, I just noticed "A resource shape is a resource that describes > the contents of, and constraints on, the RDF representation of other > resources." in the Resource Shapes submission. This clears up the situation > for me quite a bit, but why oh why isn't it called a shape resource or just > a shape? I've updated the examples and finished the classes-shapes conversion up through section 7 in https://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-primer/no-class-templates.html Care to try it on for size? > >> The ldom proposal was IMO a good move but didn't bring consensus on > >> this core shape definition part. The top-down approach that we are > >> trying all this time does not lead to any conclusion and maybe a > >> bottom-up might work. Maybe we can say that this is a temporary syntax > >> that most people feel comfortable with and if requirements cannot be > >> met we can adapt it accordingly. > > > >> Best, Dimitris > > > > >> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Technology_Name [2] > >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Core_Shape_Definition > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU24HcAAoJECjN6+QThfjzg40H/iHI8BLgVEllBP8dhf52FzjY > eEa6B6P2KbR21j+2CWEvzoQYvFdmK60U3LPLwsPxvhSXKKHXum2TW1Wm0Su/EJRP > UpiZMQklUANMtENdU1V/YdXiclQFM+zs5wFdbjVOo5n+Ze06n4b4t9K86R8Q+sr1 > 5dItq6mNhQcbUbLZKBrNVhU7pcbbrOtKmYoXWZpgsmiFxO6PxxnKB9N68uoSlVt0 > pqG+LBKkyrlvEgf4dHh/nclKLSUh9nJqozSO4HTseD8jErrY3tW3qx/FNTqOTiDC > YYuJq6ukv2K5MCyG1a/NlZa4lhwpgZftOLwWbwTRS7nOlGA5yOfwQXQ/DIwB9JI= > =X6fQ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2015 17:18:31 UTC