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

Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 14:04:13 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DCFDBD.2080402@topquadrant.com>
 From what I have seen so far, your alternative proposal has at least as 
many irregularities and constructs as the current drafts, while 
introducing many new problems. I will send a list of problems that I 
have already found at some stage. Many of these design decisions are 
basically a matter of taste and of a different world-view.

I believe as long there is no list of real ISSUEs that you are trying to 
solve here, all this looks like a solution in search of a problem.


On 7/03/2016 13:21, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.
> peter
> 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 04:04:46 UTC

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