- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:55:51 -0800
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 3/10/16 3:10 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > 1) Proposal 4 is poorly motivated. As Peter stated himself, he started > this effort to simplify the metamodel. He made changes to the end-user > visible syntax in order to "simplify" the metamodel. However, there was > no problem with the end-user visible syntax to begin with. There was no > need to change it, and the new syntax is a step backwards. The metamodel > is far less important than the user-facing syntax. Simplifing the model is a valid motivation. Otherwise we wouldn't have suggested to have a ShEx user interface. As that interface may not be forthcoming, it would be preferable to have SHACL be easily understandable. Otherwise it can only be easily used with a UI on top of it, and that limits its use to those who have access to an application with an interface. I think that would be the death of SHACL. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 15:56:05 UTC