Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

See
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_4

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 Tuesday, 8 March 2016 23:03:46 UTC