W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: fundamental problems with SHACL

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:15:52 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D32C7C18.99EDA%irene@topquadrant.com>
I believe keeping constraints and shapes different makes the concepts
easier to understand.

Shapes are groupings of constraints that specify what nodes constraints
must be validated for (the scope).

One could dispense with this separation in favor of making it possible for
a constraint to also łgroup˛ other constraints or for a shape to group
other shapes. This recursive approach may seem elegant, but I believe it
would make the spec harder to understand - most people, in my experience,
are not comfortable with recursive definitions so beloved in the semantic
web community. It will also make it harder to talk about this whole topic
as we would loose an important term in our vocabulary.

Irene 


On 4/7/16, 5:15 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Constraints and shapes are different, leading to
>verbose syntax, even for an RDF encoding.
Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 01:16:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC