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

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:09:39 -0700
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e0ebcdcf-3f44-3bcc-7d6c-d83db20ccd8f@kcoyle.net>


On 8/10/16 3:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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.

Examples are important, but that does not mean that the text should be 
unclear.

>
> 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?

I did not suggest that constraints and targets should be defined as 
shapes. I asked about an inconsistency in the definitions. To my mind, 
the outlier is filters.

Shape := label:IRI|BNode, targets:Set[Target], filters:Set[Shape], 
constraints:Set[Constraint]

kc

>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 00:10:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 11 August 2016 00:10:13 UTC