- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 07:00:33 -0700
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 05/12/2016 08:22 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 5/12/16 5:51 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> I agree the editorial arrangement of these subsections is unhelpful, and >> I have aligned the nesting with this commit: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/fd044c834960c791cc1740509224057d03057567 >> >> >> >> The naming and syntax issue had been raised before as >> >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/148 >> >> I would find it very unfortunate if we switched to another syntax that >> hard-codes these few scope types and then requires a completely >> different syntax for the general scope mechanism of the extension >> mechanism. Such decisions drive up implementation costs significantly, >> and also require the reader of SHACL to look at a rather arbitrary >> collection of predicates. > > Yet the current design takes a very different approach between node and > class-based scopes, which are "hard coded", and the remaining scopes, which > are subclasses of sh:Shape. We have: > > ex:PersonShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:scopeNode ex:Alice . > > and > > ex:PropertyScopeExampleShape > a sh:Shape ; > sh:scope [ > a sh:PropertyScope ; > sh:predicate ex:knows ; > ] . > > So the inconsistency is already there, to the inconvenience of the user. > > Also, what would be the object of ex:MyShape >> sh:allObjectsScope triples? > > I'd like to think more about the "all objects" "all subjects" -- I'm having > trouble thinking of them as scopes in this same sense; I almost think they'd > fit into the constraints functional area. Do we have use cases for those? that > would help. > > Thanks, > kc It could be just like sh:closed, i.e., it takes true as an object. peter
Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 14:01:09 UTC