- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:35:25 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/03/2016 1:55, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > 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. +1 But can you explain what your paragraph has to do with mine? Thanks, Holger
Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 20:36:00 UTC