W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 17:36:56 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a3ccCwZCGHJ-vRMs5uMy3PSCA9y7nVLCac2SHhwoc_H_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC