- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:43 +0100
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 28/07/16 03:27, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>
> On 7/27/16 4:42 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> The Abstract Syntax lags behind the path-vs-inverse property stuff.
>>
>> I also believe we have decided to use the term shapes graph instead of
>> "schema", so this should be aligned.
>>
>> In terms of the current resolutions, I believe the spec is up to date.
>> We are waiting for resolutions on ISSUE-133 (tomorrow) and then scope
>> syntax.
>>
>> Meanwhile I believe it might be easier to track the spec with a single
>> BNF-like document instead of having snippets of the syntax interwoven
>> with prose. Otherwise you are probably wasting a lot of time tracking
>> another changing document.
>
> I disagree. Readability is very important. - kc
I agree readability is important. For implementers, a single BNF or at
least a normative grammar in some form, is readability.
That is not to say that other text, with other audiences in mind, isn't
important.
Andy
>
>
>>
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 28/07/2016 1:42, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> Eric and I have made the requested updates to the Abstract Syntax
>>> document:[1]
>>> - made clear that this is based on SHACL and is non-normative
>>> - added references (refresh, refresh, refresh until you see them)
>>>
>>> We need to coordinate this with SHACL, but I admit to being unclear
>>> what changes are "in progress" there, so perhaps Holger and Dimitris
>>> could give us an update on where they are with changes. For example,
>>> scopeNode is still listed in the editor's draft - will it be removed
>>> before the next working draft is issued? etc. Maybe what we need is
>>> what will be in/out for that next draft?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc & ericP
>>>
>>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2016 10:46:19 UTC