Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec

Arthur,



On 9/24/15, 11:27 AM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote:

>Harold,
>
>By "document style" do you mean a CSS style for use with requirements?
>If so, I recall that there is such a style.

I'm looking for a style that differentiates SHACL engine requirements from
SHACL schema (program) recommendations.  As an analogy, a specification
for a programming language might assert that a compiler SHOULD (i.e. It is
RECOMMENDED that a compiler...) recognize language extensions embedded
comments.  This is very different from the assertion that a well-written
*program* SHOULD include comments about its function and use. I would like
to be able to tell these two sorts of things apart...


>
>By "good coding style" do you mean in SHACL programs, e.g. including
>rods:comments?

Yes -- a way of saying SHACL "programs" (schemas?) SHOULD have comments
while making it clear that this isn't the same "SHOULD" as SHACL engines
SHOULD be able to recognize extensions.

>
>-- 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 16:37:56 UTC