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

Re: issue-95 metamodel simplifications

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:53:04 -0800
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56D77CE0.7070405@gmail.com>
I was also considering this to be a problem.  I have a modest proposal that
eats away at the complexity by refactoring constraints and shapes.  I was
hoping to get the proposal out a bit earlier, but should be sending it out
later today.


On 03/02/2016 03:24 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 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>
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 23:53:37 UTC

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