Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 12 February 2015

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2015-02-12 08:59+1000]
> 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.

Why are the rules different for a primer? Editorially, it seems
sensible to have a primer about the core spec and another about the
integration with SPARQL.


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

I've added a swith in some issue text that switches between a SPARQL
builtin ('b') vs. an extension model ('e') so folks can see both.


> - 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.

The object of ldom:propertyGroup is indeed a ldom:Shape with
ldom:property arcs as you'd expect.


> Overall the union stuff is not all that interesting to deserve its
> own section IMHO. Union scenarios can easily also be represented
> in SPARQL.

I've never seen a schema language without OR before. I know I have
lots of use cases where I need it in the core vocabulary. I've added
text capturing this issue.
[[
<p class="issue">
  Disjunction (the choice construct described below) is not an accepted requirement of LDOM.
</p>
]]


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

done, though it is in fact a vocabulary expressing a context-sensitive
grammar.


> - 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).

I've added another beauty contest issue and switch, this time 'c' for
collection and 'o' for object 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).

Isn't that what you arued for above?


> - 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.

The following paragraph says
[[
LDOM defines two predicates, ldom:nodeShape and ldom:classShape. The
former asserts that a particular node in some graph conforms to a
specific shape. The latter asserts that every node of some type
conforms to a specific shape. It is expected that different
communities will develop many more associations, much as the WSDL
community created an association between input and output documents
and an XML schema which described them.
]]


> - 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
> 

-- 
-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 Thursday, 12 February 2015 14:31:42 UTC