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

Re: Shall we redo the 1.3 example (was: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148))

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 10:57:11 -0400
Message-Id: <3376CFD5-74C7-43A6-81DC-73C5DFF45625@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Yes. I think I re-read it at least 5 or 6 times and head to ask questions before I understood it.

It is too complex for the intro example. 


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 16, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 16/05/2016 8:04, Karen Coyle wrote:
>> It's not just that it has no scope - it is a particular kind of shape, a shape-based constraint component, and probably shouldn't be in that first example at all.
> Each time I am re-reading the spec I stumble across the complexity of this very first example. Is this supposed to:
> a) serve as a human-readable starting point
> b) show off some cool features (that motivate SHACL)
> c) provide a walk-through of key features?
> I suggest we select a much simpler example - something like validating instances of schema:Person and just a single shape.
> There will be plenty of other examples in other documents (tutorials and primers) in the future. Not our job.
> Thoughts?
> Holger
Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 14:57:41 UTC

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