Re: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements

I will create this ticket, NP. One thing I do wonder though: In the 
early days of the requirement phase, we had an IMHO much more efficient 
process, in which we went through a long list of requirements within 
three months or so. I doubt that we would be able to produce such a list 
with our current process:

     https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements

We had a relatively efficient format to discuss proposals, and try to 
resolve them outside of the (inefficient) weekly meeting interval. I 
believe it would be good to bring such a page back, maybe called "Open 
Proposals" where anyone can write down their proposals and people can 
signal their straw poll votes.

How is it acceptable that the group is close to a stand-still if one 
member is absent from meetings for two weeks? In the age of the 
internet, I trust we can do more work in parallel, using the wiki.

Holger


On 10/17/15 3:56 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> I for one have been wondering why we needed such a heavy structure so 
> I would very welcome these improvements.
> I do think this needs to be raised as a formal issue and proposal. I 
> know this feels like unnecessary bureaucracy but this is what it takes 
> to work in a group as opposed to work on your own. :-)
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies 
> - IBM Software Group
>
>
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 10/15/2015 09:39:20 PM:
>
> > From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> > To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> > Date: 10/15/2015 09:40 PM
> > Subject: ISSUE-98 (cont'd): Further syntax improvements
> >
> > Now that we have a more consistent framework for node constraints, I
> > noticed that we could further improve the syntax for various other
> > constraint types:
> >
> > Currently:
> >
> > ex:NotExampleShape
> >      a sh:Shape ;
> >      sh:constraint [
> >          a sh:NotConstraint ;
> >          sh:shape [
> >              sh:property [
> >                  sh:predicate ex:property ;
> >                  sh:minCount 1 ;
> >              ] ;
> >          ]
> >      ] .
> >
> >
> > Suggested:
> >
> > ex:NotExampleShape
> >      a sh:Shape ;
> >      sh:constraint [
> >          sh:not [
> >              sh:property [
> >                  sh:predicate ex:property ;
> >                  sh:minCount 1 ;
> >              ] ;
> >          ]
> >      ] .
> >
> > Similar for sh:and and sh:or.
> >
> > Closed constraints could become:
> >
> > ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
> >      a sh:Shape ;
> >      sh:constraint [
> >          sh:closed true ;
> >          sh:ignoredProperties (sh:nodeShape rdf:type) ;
> >      ] ;
> >
> > (which would also help with Karen's recent issue because she could say
> > sh:closed=false explicitly).
> >
> > Which would only leave the 4 property pair constraints as ugly
> > ducklings. We could decide to make them directional and then use
> > sh:property, e.g.
> >
> >      ex:EqualExampleShape
> >          a sh:Shape ;
> >          sh:property [
> >              sh:predicate ex:firstName ;
> >              sh:equals ex:givenName ;
> >          ]
> >      ] .
> >
> > which would make perfect sense for sh:lessThan anyway.
> >
> > Does anyone have issues with such changes? They almost feel like
> > editorial changes, but if needed I could raise a new formal ISSUE, put
> > this to the end of the queue and wait... :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Holger
> >
> >
>