- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 12:27:36 -0400
- To: "Solbrig, Harold R." <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Harold, By "document style" do you mean a CSS style for use with requirements? If so, I recall that there is such a style. By "good coding style" do you mean in SHACL programs, e.g. including rods:comments? -- Arthur On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Solbrig, Harold R. <Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu> wrote: > Folks, > > I've encountered something that I find a tad confusing in the spec as I > edit it. Portions of the spec are discussing what it means to be a > compliant SHACL implementation. As an example, Section 3 states > "Compliant SHACL engines MUST support all these constraints". Other > compliance points, however, appear to contain recommendations about what > would constitute a good SHACL schema. As an example, section 3.1 on > Property constraints states that a sh:property reference SHOULD have an > rdf:type triple. From the SHACL engine perspective, there is nothing we > can do with this assertion, because SHOULD is a recommendation, so an > engine will need to work correctly whether or not an rdf:type is present. > > > Similarly, the document recommends the use of rdfs:comments and > rdfs:labels, but there doesn't appear to be any assertions about the > behavior of compliant SHACL engines. > > I would propose that we create a new document style with a different > format that will allow us to include these statements but will > differentiate SHACL requirements from "good coding style" recommendations. > > Make sense? > > Harold Solbrig > >
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 16:28:04 UTC