Re: shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec]

I anticipate several discussions about the scope of such a shapes file. 
Would it include SPARQL queries (if yes then what about things like the 
$shapesGraph complication). Would it include type checks such as that 
predicates must be IRIs. Would it include warnings or info if sh:class 
is not a class in the shapes graph.

But more importantly, if we publish such a file, we are also expected to 
produce a correct files, and this includes test cases, documentation 
etc. All this feels like churn that we shouldn't commit to given that we 
have other tickets open. Time permitting we could tackle this when 
everything else is done.

And yes I agree why having the shapes file has benefits for testing the 
expressivity, and a lot of feedback that I have given to the group so 
far has actually been based on the shacl shapes file that I am editing 
myself for the open source API. But anyone can do this and similar 
exercises in their spare time. It doesn't require the full WG's attention.

Holger


On 16/02/2016 3:04, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger,
>
> Defining shapes for SHACL has a lot of benefit. It's a good test for
> the expressivity of SHACL. Why do you predict long debates?
>
> -- Arthur
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/122
>>
>> Raised by: Holger Knublauch
>> On product: SHACL Spec
>>
>> In a previous resolution
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05
>>
>> we decided to publish a (RDFS) vocabulary file plus a separate SHACL file with shape definitions. I no longer support the creation of the Shapes file, because it may cause long debates about details and thus take away resources that are better spent elsewhere. A shapes file is not needed by all SHACL engines, and could instead be published as open source projects outside of the WG.
>>
>> If the WG has spare time at the end, we could revisit this, but for now I think we should get the essential stuff done and postpone this deliverable indefinitely.
>>
>>
>>

Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 23:55:47 UTC