Re: Editing examples

Arthur, here's what I sent to Holger as a suggested replacement for 
Example 4:

EXAMPLE 4 WAS:

ex:ExampleClass
     a rdfs:Class .

ex:ExampleShape
     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:scopeClass ex:ExampleClass ;
     sh:constraint [
         ...
     ] .

ex:ExampleInstance
     rdf:type ex:ExampleClass .

REPLACEMENT:

foaf:Person
     a rdfs:Class .

ex:PersonShape
     a sh:Shape ;
     sh:scopeClass foaf:Person ;
     sh:constraint [
         sh:predicate foaf:name ;
         sh:minCount 1 ; ] .

ex:myPerson
     a foaf:Person .

Both FOAF and Dublin Core are commonly enough known that I think the 
examples can use them, and yet not be overly complex.

That said, for our own purposes I think that we need some complex cases 
in the test suite to make sure that SHACL does handle real life data.

kc

On 9/25/15 10:39 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Karen,
>
> I support your proposal to use realistic examples, although they
> should also be kept brief so they are  easy to understand. We should
> avoid completely generic names, or nonsense names like foo and bar.
> The WG requires that all language features be justified by real-world
> use cases, so there should be no problem in finding names that
> illustrate each language feature. For example, to illustrate the
> predicate pair LessThanConstraint, birthDate and deathDate are
> perfect.
>
> -- Arthur
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:
>> As I think I have mentioned before, I feel that many of the current examples
>> are perhaps overly brief and may be hard to read for many people. I would
>> like to suggest that we at least approximate real examples "to the extent
>> possible", using terms that may be familiar to readers.
>>
>> Looking at the Linked Open Vocabularies[1] list of vocabularies, the top
>> four, based on use, are:
>>
>> DCterms http://purl.org/dc/terms/
>> DCelements http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
>> FOAF http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
>> SKOS http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core
>>
>> The actual use of these is better understood via the statistics on term
>> use.[2]
>>
>> I would be happy to contribute new examples for the (very few) examples that
>> I understand, but if I can get some help with understanding what is there I
>> will be able to do even more.
>>
>> If anyone thinks this needs to be an "issue" please let me know.
>>
>> kc
>> [1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov
>> [2] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/terms
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@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 Saturday, 26 September 2015 05:57:35 UTC