- 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
Looking through the metamodel proposals¹, 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. ¹ <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3> -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) 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