- From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:36:56 +0300
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3ccCwZCGHJ-vRMs5uMy3PSCA9y7nVLCac2SHhwoc_H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
I created a proposal page that we can all vote here https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-148:_Scope_declaration_simplification On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 14:37:51 UTC