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

Re: Please review the SHACL draft (was Re: Editing progress)

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 08:47:58 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <741e3bba-b882-6f2d-0bdf-5a3005b889f7@topquadrant.com>
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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 August 2016 22:48:36 UTC