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

Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:21:59 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DCF3D7.7000409@gmail.com>
I don't see this as a radical change.  A radical change would scrap most of
the syntax and require non-local changes to shapes and constraints.

What is broken in the current syntax is that there are too many constructs and
too many irregularities.  Refactoring results in fewer constructs and more
regularity.  This will result in a language that is easier to use.


On 03/06/2016 06:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Peter,
> I understand this is largely just a sketch and you may be "thinking out loud".
> Yet I don't have sufficient information on how all this is supposed to work,
> e.g. with SPARQL generation. It would help if you could provide some examples
> of how this vocabulary would be used to define some built-in and extension
> constraint types. On
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3
> I am presenting snippets illustrating the definitions of
> ex:LanguageConstraintType, sh:PatternConstraintType and
> sh:ClassConstraintType. Would you mind creating similar examples in your
> metamodel?
> Furthermore, I am unclear what problem you are trying to solve. What is broken
> in the current SHACL syntax that motivates your (radical) changes? Have any
> users complained or are there any related ISSUEs recorded? Of course we can
> come up with any number of syntaxes for SHACL and I could certainly make up
> plenty of variations, too.
> Thanks,
> Holger
> On 5/03/2016 13:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> I fixed up some silly syntax errors and added prefix declarations.  The
>> attached file looks OK to the syntax checker I grabbed.
>> peter
>> On 03/04/2016 04:29 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> Turtle file doesn't parse. Could you fix this?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Holger
>>> On 5/03/2016 10:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>> On 03/03/2016 04:20 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>>> If you want this to be
>>>>> seriously considered, please work out the details, including Turtle files
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> Holger
>>>> OK, since you asked so nicely, see the two attached files.
>>>> peter
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 03:22:30 UTC

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