- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:47:58 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi Karen, in terms of a data model, targets, shapes and constraints are classes. They actually have corresponding rdfs:Classes in the Turtle file. So one way of explaining them, in addition to an abstract syntax, is to introduce the data model. I had a UML-like diagram in earlier versions, a variant of which I believe would still be a good thing to have. It would show how the concepts are connected and possibly appeal to a certain technical audience. Having gone through the spec recently I also cannot help but think that most people will understand SHACL simply by following and copying the design patterns from the examples. So I believe it's good to have as many examples as possible. Other than that I am left wondering what conclusions I should draw from your observations. For example, I don't see why targets or constraints would need to be defined as shapes, because Filters are. Do you have suggestions on how to improve the flow? Thanks, Holger On 10/08/2016 2:07, Karen Coyle wrote: > Holger, the way section 2 now reads there are targets, filter shapes, > and constraints. Filters are defined as shapes, but neither targets > nor constraints are defined in that way. This seems inconsistent and > the actual meaning of shape seems less clear. Sometimes it seems to > refer to the set of targets, filters and constraints, sometimes it > seems to refer to an individual filter segment. > > In the abstract syntax we have: > > Shape := label:IRI|BNode, scopes:Set[Scope], filters:Set[Shape], > constraints:Set[Constraint] > > Using target that will become: > > Shape := label:IRI|BNode, targets:Set[Target], filters:Set[Shape], > constraints:Set[Constraint] > > kc > > > > On 8/8/16 5:20 PM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >> Thanks Holger for the update. Let's talk on Thursday about the >> requirements to move the spec to Candidate Recommendation (CR). >> Unfortunately I don't think we're quite there yet. Here is quick run >> through the main requirements: >> >> * all known issues impacting conformance of an implementation have been >> closed. >> * proof of wide review - we need to publish a draft and broadly announce >> it calling for public comments prior to moving to CR >> * test suite - we at least need to have the framework in place that the >> specification can point to >> * exit criteria - how do we define what it will take to exit CR - >> typically a minimum of two implementations of every feature >> >> So, for now, please, everyone, review the spec and let's see on Thursday >> whether we can agree to publish the updated spec. >> >> Eric and Karen, if you have a chance to update the abstract syntax draft >> that'd be great. Please, let the WG know when you're done. >> >> Thanks. >> -- >> Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - >> IBM Cloud >> >> >> >> >> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> >> To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> >> Date: 08/08/2016 04:17 PM >> Subject: Editing progress >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> FYI I did a complete pass through the spec over the last couple of days >> and fixed a number of inconsistencies and buglets. Dimitris also did >> some updates. In the upcoming meeting we may want to decide to press the >> publish button again? I would be interested to hear what is missing with >> respect to reaching the next phase of the W3C process. >> >> Holger >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 22:48:35 UTC