Re: Proposed enhancement to the SHACL spec

Harold,

ReSpec already recognizes RFC 2119 keywords [1] so it sounds like you
are proposing something orthogonal, i.e. to distinguish between SHACL
language versus SHACL engine requirements. Maybe Arnaud or Eric know
of a standard way to do that.

[1] https://www.w3.org/respec/guide.html#rfc-2119

-- Arthur

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Solbrig, Harold R.
<Solbrig.Harold@mayo.edu> wrote:
> 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 17:17:52 UTC