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

issue-95 metamodel simplifications

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 18:24:12 -0500
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20160302232410.GI24478@w3.org>
Looking through the metamodel proposals┬╣, it seems that a lot of the
complexity comes from the fact that triple constraints, inverse triple
constraints, and filter constraints are different beasts. What are the
use cases that motivate filters?

The XML Schema WG provided only one way, a processing instruction, to
associate XML elements with types in a schema. Years later, WSDL added
another, associating parts of the REST I/O for some endpoint with
types in some schema. The processing instruction seems analogous to
the sh:classShape property connecting instances of some class to a
given shape. The WSDL analog would fit naturally in some LDP doc.

┬╣ <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3>

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +

Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 23:24:36 UTC

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