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

Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:10:43 +1000
To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <569F16D3.1040207@topquadrant.com>
Hi Arthur,

I am trying to get my head back into this topic. Am I right to assume 
that your RDFS vocabulary

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/data-shapes/gh-pages/shacl/shacl-vocab.ttl

is (roughly) your current draft? I believe it would be good to work on 
such an RDFS vocab first, as part of our discussion. My goal remains to 
find a plain RDFS vocabulary that is intuitive while also making its 
URIs reusable so that a template-based implementation is possible.

I suggest we organize the Turtle file from top to bottom by subject 
areas, and not alphabetically. Also put individuals together with their 
classes. This would allow us to tick off the uncontroversial classes 
such as sh:NodeKind somewhere at the beginning.

Some suggestions on the vocabulary's format:

- Following other vocabularies such as SKOS, the graph URI and 
owl:Ontology should be http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl, without #. We don't 
need to use owl:Ontology for this pure RDFS model - it could just be an 
rdfs:Resource.
- I think we should minimize dependencies on other namespaces, i.e. 
references to oslc should be removed. Likewise, dcterms can often be 
replaced with rdfs:label and rdfs:comment.
- When we use rdf:XMLLiteral, then the values should be valid XML (which 
isn't the case in your file), so we should either switch to rdf:HTML or 
use plain text (xsd:string without hyperlinks).
- I think it's premature to talk about vs:term_status = stable for 
anything, so maybe we should just drop these triples for now.
- rdfs:isDefinedBy is just noise and extra maintenance burden for now; I 
would drop them.
- rdfs:labels should be presentation names, not just the local names of 
the URIs, e.g. "source template" instead of "sourceTemplate".

Holger

PS: I also corrected the subject line which was somehow about the 
unrelated issue 78.

On 20/01/2016 12:29 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Holger/Simon,
>
> I created a wiki page [1] to collect proposals for metamodel
> simplifications. Please post yours there. I'll schedule a telecon when
> that's done.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications
>
> -- Arthur
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Holger Knublauch
> <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Both time slots would work for me. I will not be available reliably before
>> Jan 7.
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31/12/2015 2:14 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>> Holger,
>>>
>>> Please clarify. Are you available in Europe before Jan. 7?
>>>
>>> All - Happy New Year?
>>>
>>> -- Arthur
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the rather unfortunate overlaps in [1] and given that I'm an
>>>> early bird, I could also start @ 4am CET if that's more feasible for you
>>>> guys.
>>>>
>>>> simon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20160107&p1=47&p2=250&p3=259
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
>>>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>>>
>>>> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>>>>
>>>> Am 2015-12-30 15:58, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
>>>>> On 12/29/2015 22:55, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>>>> Holger, Simon,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry I missed the opportunity to have a Skype call while Holger was
>>>>>> in Europe - too many holiday season activities. Let's have a call
>>>>>> before the WG resumes on Jan. 7.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about Monday, Jan. 4?
>>>>>> I am OK to start as early as 6am EST. That would be 12pm CET for Simon
>>>>>> and 9pm for Holger. If these do not work, please propose other times.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will not be available before January 7 in Australia (possibly Jan 6
>>>>> for other time zones).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?iso=20160107&p1=47&p2=250&p3=259
>>>>>
>>>>> The time you suggest works for me in general, and I have no
>>>>> conflicting meetings at this time slot so you can choose freely.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In preparation for the call, let's each put our proposals on the wiki.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still have a lot to catch up (to implement the many resolutions of
>>>>> the F2F) but I will try to put my latest suggestion on a wiki page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Holger
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Holger Knublauch
>>>>>> <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It might be good to try to have some time together next week while I
>>>>>>> am
>>>>>>> still in the same time zone as Simon. My schedule is still wide open
>>>>>>> Monday
>>>>>>> - Wednesday next week. 24th is xmas in Germany, and things will slow
>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>> until next year. Please make a suggestion, Arthur. 09:00 for you would
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> 15:00 for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Holger
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/12/2015 7:03 PM, Simon Steyskal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any day starting from 7:30 am CET - open end works for me.
>>>>>>>> I would prefer to not have our meeting after 21pm CET though.. (ofc
>>>>>>>> under
>>>>>>>> the assumption that this works for all of us since we have (very)
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> time zones)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>>>> simon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
>>>>>>>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 2015-12-15 18:34, schrieb Arthur Ryman:
>>>>>>>>> Holger,Simon,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When would you like to resume this discussion? Any day/time
>>>>>>>>> preference?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>>>>>
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 05:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:29 UTC