W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: How would option b) on the last straw poll of 12 March work?

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <550467E7.7030509@kcoyle.net>
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

On 3/14/15 8:46 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> would and should actually read and understand Z semantics or some
> mathematical axiomatic descriptions, but would find SPARQL more
> difficult to understand?

I hope nothing that I have said could be read as support of Z semantics 
or mathematical axiomatic descriptions because I am not familiar with 
either. I prefer that standards be written in clear natural language. If 
there are formalisms that must be used, they should exist in addition to 
natural language descriptions. Many standards take this approach. In 
fact, the only place that I seem to have run into (incomprehensible) 
formalisms is in the OWL documentation. Everything else uses natural 
language (stiltified to be precise, perhaps) and examples. Even the 
SPARQL documentation takes this approach, so I don't understand why 
"formalisms" are assumed to be needed for SHACL.


Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 14 March 2015 16:55:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:17 UTC