Re: mentions of recursive shapes

On 7/10/2015 9:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Here are some mentions of recursive shapes, most from the WG mailing list,
> but a few from other places.
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/Submission/shex-primer/ IssueShape
> - recursion can be replaced by transitive closure of ex:related
> - can be turned into condition on nodes with ex:related values
> - data would normally have a type marker
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0160.html
>   Polentoni
> - recursion can be replaced by transitive closure of ex:knows
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0187.html
>
> Private email to Jose:
>    I don't know how a multi-valued approach would work.  It appears to me that
>    recursion over negation splits the choice space.
>    Consider, for example,
>      sh = not p sh
>      sha = or ( q sh ) ( r sh )
>    on
>      a q x .
>      a r y .
>      x p y .
>      y p x .
>    I think that a should belong to sha, but I don't see how to achieve this
>    without considering multiple models.
>    peter

I have turned the above example into

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-005.ttl

I assume the test is to verify that ex:a has shape ex:sha?

>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0301.html

Turned into

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-006.ttl

It took further reading to understand that | was supposed to be an xor.

> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0309.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0449.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0439.html
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0353.html

These all cover similar ground as recursive-006, so I did not convert 
them yet.

>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66

This was covered by

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-002.ttl

>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0083.html

Was already in the test suite as

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-003.ttl

> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0129.html

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-007.ttl

>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0180.html
>  NB: Change 'and' to ',' in the syntax

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-008.ttl

>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04972

Added as

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/blob/ISSUE-62/data-shapes-test-suite/tests/features/core/recursive-004.ttl

Thanks
Holger


>
>
> A simple problematic case:
> Shape <Sh> { !:p @<Sh> }
> Graph 1 :a :p :b .
>         :b :p :a .
> Graph 2 :a :p :b .
>         :b :p :c .
>         :c :p :a .
>

Received on Friday, 10 July 2015 03:04:26 UTC