Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015

Hi Eric,

I have seen that Arnaud wants to have a straw poll on your version of the Primer tomorrow. Here are some of the outstanding issues from my perspective, and I can't vote until these are resolved.

- A decision needs to be made whether we need a primer at all.

- If this is a Primer then it needs to be complete: spawning off details about templates and SPARQL may go into a separate document of the core specification, but not of the primer. So the outsourced
parts should be brought back for now.

- The extension syntax is way too verbose, and should just be a single property such as ldom:sparql like before.

- The union syntax does not align with the concept of templates.
What was the problem with the old syntax? Introducing things like
ldom:propertyGroup looks unnecessary - just use another ldom:Shape.
Overall the union stuff is not all that interesting to deserve its
own section IMHO. Union scenarios can easily also be represented
in SPARQL.

- The abstract starts off calling LDOM a "Grammar". I would prefer "RDF vocabulary".

- LDOM templates currently do not handle multiple values. The
enumeration example with allowed values should switch to an rdf:List
for now:

ldom:allowedValue  (ex:unassigned  ,ex:assigned)

as it will be easier to support rdf:List-valued properties than
multiple property values (then the SPARQL query can walk the
rdf:List).

- Due to the aforementioned complications, why not just remove the
ldom:allowedValue altogether - it does not contribute much, or
replace it with a pointer to a class such as ex:IssueStatus that has
those two instances (a more extensible design anyway).

- It is unclear which of the URIs in Section 5 such as ldom:nodeShape are part of the standard. This comes back to the ShapeSelectors topic.

- Section 6: "LDOM's extension mechanism permits other languages, like SPARQL, to be used when LDOM's expressivity is insufficient." makes no sense to me. LDOM includes SPARQL. Could be changed along the lines of "... when the expressivity of the pre-defined LDOM core templates is not sufficient.  But first we need to clarify what we mean with "core" and "extension".

Thanks,
Holger



On 2/11/2015 14:23, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> The agenda for the call on Thursday is now available:
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.02.12
>
> Note that I have carried over the proposal to approve a batch of 
> requirements that have now been renamed to address Peter's objection 
> and added another one. I hope we can close on this this week so, 
> please, come prepared.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Standards - 
> IBM Software Group