Re: Please vote on ISSUE-211

OK, but I don't feel that I can vote until I fully understand the 
implications.

1) What these seems to do is to remove the superclass sh:Constraint from 
the model - is that the case? Does it do anything else?
--I would favor this because of the confusion caused by sh:Constraint 
vs. a set of properties that are referred to as "constraints" in the 
spec. I would also favor it because having both shapes and property 
constraints as subclasses of sh:Constraint does not make sense to me as 
a mental model of a validation vocabulary. (The current model seems to 
describe service functionality rather than vocabulary logic.)

2) This still seems to treat "node shapes" and property shapes 
differently. Node shapes are subsumed into shape. If this is the case, 
then I would prefer that shape be defined clearly as including node 
shapes - the way the two-class diagram reads today, node shapes are not 
at all visible. From the point of view of someone wanting to understand 
SHACL, this is not good.

3) There needs to be a fairly complete user view of the SHACL language. 
I tried developing one informally, but got stuck. I will try again. In 
any case, the user view must be included in the specification OR there 
could be two specifications - language and processing rules. Or, as they 
are divided in the SPARQL world, query language and service description. 
At the moment, the two are intermixed in the spec, and neither is 
entirely clear.

kc

On 12/12/16 8:47 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
> if we keep sh:property in the language the syntax will be 100% identical
> with the current syntax,
> if we decide to drop sh:property, we will use sh:shape instead.
> So, there will be very little to no change in the current syntax /
> structure of shapes
>
> this change in the metamodel will result in a simplication of the
> definitions in section 2.
> This will enable some SHACL constructs like targets to be used in what
> we have now as PropertyConstraints,
> so, this change additionally enables some new shape structures / syntax
> that are now forbidden with prose in the spec.
>
> I also agree with Irene that ~90% of the users will not use the new
> enabled shortcuts.
> For the rest 10%, personally I find it more intuitive with this proposal
> and I feel like  the simplification in the spec further justifies it
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net
> <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>> wrote:
>
>     I would like to see an example of how this works when there are
>     multiple property constraints. I believe that was the problem that
>     Irene saw with it, and sh:property has been explained to me as a way
>     to gather constraints into a graph.
>
>     kc
>
>
>     On 12/12/16 6:48 AM, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         Dimitris made a proposal to close this issue based on one of Peter's
>         proposals. Holger opposes it. This is seen by both as an important
>         decision for the WG to make so I would like people to vote in
>         the wiki
>         on which one they prefer and/or can live with.
>         https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints
>         <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/index.php?title=Proposals#ISSUE-211:_Eliminate_property_constraints>
>
>         Of course once you're done with that one I encourage you to look
>         at and
>         vote on the other issues too. :-)
>         Thanks.
>         --
>         Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web &
>         Blockchain
>         Technologies - IBM Cloud
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: 1-510-435-8234
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org,
> http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 18:14:24 UTC