Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope?

Do we need an issue (or a time slot in Lille) to at least discuss how we 
will determine the core? As yet, it doesn't seem that the group has 
addressed this. And my efforts in this area haven't been successful.

kc

On 9/5/15 8:01 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> The WG decides what goes into core. If anything is considered missing we
> can add it.
>
> Holger's preference was to start with a very small core set of built-ins
> and let the community build libraries of templates as they see fit. The
> editor's draft reflects this approach although we've already added
> several features to the core.
>
> So, we can and should extend the core to address our use cases. I hope
> the development of the test suite and the user-friendly syntax will help
> identify gaps we ought to fill in.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Software Group
>
>
> Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 09/04/2015 08:14:56 PM:
>
>  > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>  > To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
>  > Date: 09/04/2015 08:14 PM
>  > Subject: Re: Shall we add sh:InversePropertyScope and sh:AllObjectsScope?
>  >
>  > So would this be in the core vocabulary? Because I've been given the
>  > impression that the core vocabulary is full - since the answer to my
>  > requirements is:
>  >
>  > On 8/31/15 10:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>  > >
>  > > SHACL can certainly express all this, but maybe not with its Core
>  > > Vocabulary. It's still SHACL though.
>  >
>  > How do some things get into core and others do not? There are at least
>  > two requirements that have come from the DCMI community that are
>  > essential but that we've been told cannot be in the core. How does this
>  > get decided?
>  >
>  > kc
>  >
>  > On 7/17/15 8:43 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>  > > Peter,
>  > >
>  > > in the minutes about ISSUE-62 I see you stated "I would like to be able
>  > > select objects of a property, not just subjects". We currently have [1]
>  > > sh:PropertyScope, which selects all subjects for a property. Is my
>  > > understanding correct that you'd like to see something like
>  > > sh:InversePropertyScope too?
>  > >
>  > > Also, we have sh:AllSubjectsScope - should I also add
> sh:AllObjectsScope
>  > > (which would exclude literals)?
>  > >
>  > > Both are trivial to add and they seem to make sense, if only for
> symmetry.
>  > >
>  > > Thanks
>  > > Holger
>  > >
>  > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#PropertyScope
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  > --
>  > Karen Coyle
>  > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net <http://kcoyle.net/>
>  > m: 1-510-435-8234
>  > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>  >
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Sunday, 6 September 2015 01:23:39 UTC