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

Re: Eric's description of core SHACL

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:25:17 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20150317162514.GC27178@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-17 05:44-0700]
> Hash: SHA1
> My takeaway from Eric's description at
> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ is that 1/ informal descriptions
> can leave quite a bit open (e.g., how recursive shapes are handled) and 2/
> going beyond the core (for example to closed shapes) can require
> significantly different machinery.

Do you know of some specification or implementation strategy in
which the difference between e.g. open and closed schema or single
and multi-occurance is less dramatic? It's more terse in formal
notation <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/Axiomatic>,
but one still has to change function prototypes and impose extra
logic, no?

> peter
> Version: GnuPG v1
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCCG0AAoJECjN6+QThfjzVWkH/iH0j82U02kpXglkrbkjCBC0
> JaRqGxdhEcaYEAiJxv/zqPlKl4yB30Uf9hQouwerUywqeVxb5RvHRK6g/U++nwN2
> OlDaNKW8GgjdHuXWRGipUHBkOXvfU114x51u/wofX9sxLCDsXTFCjcC8CxJWk3+J
> 7ykcIVaMRfuiyYPOrZrmB+IZnMcDpzMh2s87anMvc851tGAB3ZkNOWbKMeKPGpNi
> EMKgZyjBKX2nN2ycCnEJCsUvxouJa3DsBAU56TXzN9AHmkIN1AGyTGfXFidbrWlM
> 5u/j/cuiu5mZP1ZtownXrfhBqSHtHmsQ4AIexd9u5LXkYcauzCVDuuIwH5KLzFA=
> =lUkJ


office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

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 Tuesday, 17 March 2015 16:25:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC