- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 18:26:41 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/23/15 5:42 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > > On 3/24/15 4:18 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: >> Holger, I do like those examples. They still need instance data. > > Instance data is present in "EXAMPLE 2: Sample Issue instances with > resulting constraint violations" if you scroll a bit further down. Is > this not clear enough? I suggest using the form similar to that in the SPARQL 1.1 Query language document, which has separate boxes for data and queries -- except in the SHACL document it should be data, SHACL constraint, and results. However, I don't think we know exactly what format the results will take, so for now that can just be text explaining the expected result. I also think that sample data should be used, to the extent possible, for every example. > >> >> In spite of this, the first audience described by Arthur is still not >> served in this draft. You may not have a strong idea of how the >> document should address that audience; if that's the case, then >> perhaps some others of us could draw up some content for that section. >> It shouldn't all be on you, after all! > > I'd be happy to receive input and diffs on any aspect of the document. > Much of my prose is very brief, as I thought would be best for a formal > specification. While we can certainly make it more readable for > beginners, I don't see this becoming a tutorial (if that's what you are > referring to). No, I am indeed referring to the #1 section of Arthur's "division by audience" email. Tutorials will still be useful, but that's not what is being suggested. kc > > Thanks, > Holger > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 01:27:11 UTC