Re: differing accounts of Shape Expressions

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As far as I can tell, the Shape Expressions W3C submission already allows
for multiple occurrences of a predicate in a shape.

As far as I can tell, there is a greater difference between SE1 and SE2 than
there is between SE1 and SPIN.

peter

On 02/26/2015 02:17 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>> 
>>> If there is no consensus on what Shape Expressions means, then why
>>> spend more time on considering it?  It's hard enough considering
>>> something that has a single definition.
>> 
>> 
>> Considering the fact that ShEx was (afaik) developed as a response to
>> the RDF Validation Workshop[2} (as indicated in SotD[1]) I assume its
>> final "specification" is still under permanent improvement.
>> 
>> Before we reach the point of deciding on SHACL's "Compact,
>> human-readable, non-RDF syntax for expressing constraints on RDF graph
>> patterns (aka shapes)", it would (imho) be premature to make a decision
>> on wether or not ShEx should be considered just because it has evolved
>> over the last year. Apart from that, we basically have the entire "ShEx
>> team" in our midst. They can take a stance on what final semantics we
>> should consider for ShEx once the decision is required.
> 
> My semantics have changed over the last year in response to two general
> categories of user requests:
> 
> * relax the "single occurance" constraints to address use cases where the
> same predicate is used multiple times with different constraints, as
> typified by:
> 
> my:PatientShape { ex:biologicalParent { ex:gender :Female } , 
> ex:biologicalParent { ex:gender :Male } }
> 
> * show the triples that weren't covered by the shape validation.
> 
> Peter, regardless of whether the shapes people present a unified view or
> a few different options, that will have to change in response to the
> standardization process. Of course it would be better if some or all of
> us were returning to a future where we'd already seen the outcome of the
> working group decisions and community feedback. (At least we're not
> intransigent.) All of the decisions that the ShEx folks face are ones
> that the Shapes WG will eventually confront so it seems like a good thing
> that the options are already laid out on the table in the variances in
> ShEx approaches.
> 
>> simon
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/ShEx/Primer [2]
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/12/rdf-val/
>> 
>> --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU
>> Vienna
>> 
>> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>> 
>> Am 2015-02-25 23:32, schrieb Peter F. Patel-Schneider:
>> 
> Well, I would say "a plague on both your houses".
> 
> If there is no consensus on what Shape Expressions means, then why spend 
> more time on considering it?  It's hard enough considering something
> that has a single definition.
> 
> peter
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU709AAAoJECjN6+QThfjzBqAIALcd7mnyuC1l6Seba639UUPc
1trNA7Wyje4i9kQbJ3VDaAM+d+8dkvFsd3TuXFDgmDlOSIQFnKQ6BT2aeAkZq3r4
o+E+uXGCD45/JQHUWjYPfI2wmPKAANi+1USDWso/SNoashoGKyujK19ajHUNc9Jf
CWoOqdOvJ1aDPpAk/xzWgort7ld8i+DgTDbwGd1mL47TAnulWiPxAcDCBXnOVgwS
pL8gUe/SE9t6yoMZ3JhAhmLIrCBmZTKo/8U4tE4mRUi695HcMXKChBL08jeJnwo+
4GfcTNGN7G9gOFZuN4HoHVhWD2bnMo710JqJrxWuEmeqqE6H2DKeQqiaRqeqjvo=
=AANu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2015 16:52:48 UTC