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

Re: ISSUE-110: Can we close this?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 23:11:08 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5721A97C.10105@gmail.com>


On 04/06/2016 01:07 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I believe the recent clean up of sections 2 and 3 have improved the situation
> and clarifies what constraint types can be used under which circumstances. I
> suggest closing this ticket ISSUE-110. The larger question of the metamodel
> remains open as a separate ticket, and I believe we should prune the number of
> necessary tickets.
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/110
> 
> Holger
> 
> 


The example that I pointed out as not following the old guidelines has been
fixed to conform with the old guidelines.

However, the new guidelines in Section 2.3 are poorly stated.

For example, what does it mean for a property constraint to apply to the
object of triples?  This does not appear to allow sh:minCount in property
constraints.

What does it mean for a node constraint to apply directly to the focus node?
 In some sense all constraints apply directly to the focus node.

Further on in Section 2.3 it says that sh:constraint cannot share objects with
the other two constraint properties.  This is an unnecessary, and new,
syntactic restriction.

And then there is the complex constraint, constraint component, and constraint
component parameter setup that Karen has already noticed.


So, 110 can be closed, but there is still lots of work to be done to fix up
how constraints, constraint components, constraint component parameters, and
the shape-to-constraint properties work and are described.

peter
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2016 06:11:42 UTC

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