Re: regrets and votes for RDF Data Shapes WG 5 May 2016 meeting

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2016-05-05 11:22-0700]
> That's an interesting idea.  However, I think that a more detailed proposal is
> needed to see how this fits into the current SHACL syntax.

I've added an abstract syntax to show what constructs are legal and a
bit of their semantics. I expect you'll want me to answer questions
which will result in more text in the proposal.


> peter
> 
> 
> On 05/05/2016 01:18 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> 
> > 
> > ISSUE-135: and/or syntactic sugar
> >   In principle, I like simplicity but I'm unsure how to go there.
> > 
> >   In ShEx, ANDs, ORs and triple constraints are composed into triple
> >   expressions. A shape has a triple expression (likely an AND), a
> >   CLOSEDness flag, and a list of open properties (like QCRs).
> > 
> >   A SHACL could follow this pattern a la
> >   clin:AdmissionForm a sh:shape; sh:closed true;
> >     sh:expr [ a sh:And ; sh:exprs (
> >       [ sh:predicate clin:givenName ; sh:nodeKind sh:Literal ]
> >       [ sh:predicate clin:familyName ; sh:nodeKind sh:Literal ]
> >     ) ].
> > 
> >   I've made a proposal to that effect:
> >   https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-135:_and.2For_syntactic_sugar

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2016 00:25:14 UTC