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: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 14:49:17 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56DF56ED.8080802@gmail.com>
I don't think that this is a discriminator between the various proposals,
except perhaps for the special casing of blank nodes in the SHACL syntax.

A special set of shapes that produce informational messages for constructions
that might be mistaken is as much a "lint" tool as any other similar tool.

peter

On 03/04/2016 04:49 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> In Proposal 3, SHACL itself can be used to check for well-formed SHACL models,
> because the ConstraintType and Parameter declarations can be used as shapes.
> No need for hard-coding that magic into UIs or "lint" tools.
> 
> For example, this allows anyone to state that the values of sh:minCount must
> be xsd:integer. But also, constraints such as "there SHOULD only be one
> sh:minCount on the same property at the same shape" can be produced as a
> sh:Warning. Many of these are easy to formalize, and I anticipate that the
> SHACL community will contribute all kinds of such metashapes in the future.
> 
> Holger
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 22:49:53 UTC

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