Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec


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

-- Arthur

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Solbrig, Harold R.
<> 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