Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 15 October 2015

ISSUE-95

See also
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Oct/0059.html

My view is that two significant problems with SHACL are that there are
abstract classes and that templates use rdfs:subClassOf for inheritance.
Simplifications that do not fully overcome these two problems are not worthwhile.

ISSUE-86 (mostly a repeat from last week)

I vote -1 on any proposal that requires or advocates putting shape and data
information or shape and ontology information together.  SHACL is not a
modelling language.  SHACL can function with shape information fully separated
from
data and ontology information and this separation should be the suggested way
to use SHACL.

This means that I vote -1 on Dimitris's proposal.

ISSUE-98

I vote a qualified +1 on Holger's proposal.  However, the details of the
proposed change add another omnibus construct - sh:constraint.  I would prefer
an approach that is more like ShEx - where these constraints do not need a
mediator to hook them up together.

ISSUE-61

See separate message.  I generally approve of the change in direction, but
prefer a simpler overall solution.

ISSUE-93 (see also my comments from last week)

I agree that there are improvements that can be made in this area.  I do not
(yet) think that a separate document is needed for the "good coding style" stuff.

ISSUE-94 (same as last week)

I do not feel that there is any need to completely remove the RDF syntax
definition from the current SHACL document.  I do agree that there should be
more care taken to discuss SHACL constructs without appearing to require them
being RDF.  I also agree that the semantics of the constructs should be
written without depending on the RDF representation of SHACL constructs.

ISSUE-96 (same as last week)

I feel that SHACL validation results already contain adequate information to
identify the construct in question.  Adding more information only complicates
an already-complex system.  I vote -1 for such additions.

peter

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2015 18:56:28 UTC