Re: Shape Selectors

I guess I don't know what to ask at this point. First, did I miss the 
link to the ldom ontology that would clarify the meaning of the ldom 
classes and properties here? That would be a start.

I still don't see in here a way to address properties or groups of 
properties that are not defined as a class. I also cannot understand if 
this solution expects that shapes must be coded as such in the instance 
data. I can say that I expect to be working with instance data that is 
unaware of intended validation, and therefore the nature of (the shape 
of) the data itself must be sufficient.

Spelling out those aspects would be very helpful. Any single example is 
just a single example, and doesn't show the full extent of the 
functionality. Examples are helpful to show a single instance of what 
you are describing, but they are not in themselves descriptive because 
each example shows only one possible case.

kc

On 2/11/15 9:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> I have added two preamble paragraphs that may help set the stage of what
> is intended.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shape_Selectors
>
> Please follow up with questions if you have any.
>
> HTH
> Holger
>
>
> On 2/12/2015 9:42, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> Holger, I find this to be a bit sparse of explanations. I know that
>> it's easier to produce code than lots of verbiage, but I, for one,
>> would appreciate a more ample natural language description of what is
>> intended.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> kc
>>
>> On 2/10/15 3:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> I have just pushed a new "meta" feature to the LDOM system vocabulary
>>> that can be used to represent which properties shall be used to drive
>>> the LDOM engine. This is an attempt to formalize and generalize the
>>> issue of classes-vs-shapes into a solution that everyone could live
>>> with.
>>>
>>> Here are the details:
>>>
>>>      https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shape_Selectors
>>>
>>> I believe this offers the maximum flexibility so that platforms can pick
>>> which properties (such as oslc:instanceShape/oslc:classShape) they would
>>> like to use. This approach allows applications to pick whether they want
>>> backward-compatibility with RDFS classes or use stand-alone shapes, or
>>> even both!
>>>
>>> Any feedback?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 15:03:49 UTC