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

Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 07:17:20 +0100
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <0dd540682c246f75a9e1894a44441346@wu.ac.at>
Hi!

as for 2) we may want to consider re-opening issue-41 "Using property 
paths to refer to values/types?" [1]
(which I would be very very happy about)

[1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/41

simon
---
DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna

www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys

Am 2016-03-09 07:02, schrieb Holger Knublauch:
> I see three main areas of differences between current SHACL and your 
> draft:
> 
> 1) Shall the concepts Shape and Constraint be merged (syntactic sugar)
> 2) Shall SHACL constraints support arbitrary property paths instead of
> property/inverseProperty
> 3) Shall constraint parameters be limited to a single property only
> 
> Leaving aside the specific triples, does anyone see other major 
> differences?
> 
> The ISSUE-133 that you raised is limited to 3) and it may be worth
> having separate issues for the two other differences, if only to
> structure the discussion.
> 
> I do not believe that there are necessary dependencies between these
> areas, and it would IMHO be more fruitful to look at them
> individually, because there are different variations even of the
> existing syntax conceivable. I do not understand why you elected to
> start everything from scratch.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 9/03/2016 9:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> 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 Wednesday, 9 March 2016 06:17:47 UTC

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