Re: Updates to Abstract Syntax

I was hoping that the two could be published at the same time, but now I 
remember that this will be the first publication of the AS document, 
which could take some effort, although I believe that Arnaud and Eric 
now have experience with that. Therefore, it does seem that the AS may 
need a day or two more. I don't see a problem with that - Eric, is that 
ok with you?

kc

On 7/28/16 5:57 AM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Besides IPC and paths that we mentioned in the last call I noticed some
> different terminology, e.g. "SHACL instance graph" instead of "shapes graph"
> e.g. in the ASD it is stated: "The SHACL environment uses two inputs: a
> SHACL instance graph, and a data graph" while
> SHACL: "A SHACL validation engine takes two immutable RDF graphs as
> input, a valid shapes graph and a data graph"
>
> Maybe it is better to wait a bit until we publish the next SHACL PWD
> which I expect to be relatively stable until do a more thorough comparison
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Andy Seaborne
> <andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com <mailto:andy.seaborne@topquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>     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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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 Thursday, 28 July 2016 16:30:55 UTC