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

Re: Shall we redo the 1.3 example

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:50:18 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <51b5c2e7-bd7d-40cc-a224-616c615968fc@topquadrant.com>
I have rewritten all of section 1.3 with a completely new example. I 
hope this is easier to begin with, while still introducing enough 
"interesting" concepts. I could simplify further if needed, so feedback 
is appreciated.


A version of the example (in TTL as a test case) is also attached to 
this email.


On 17/05/2016 0:57, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> 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.
> Irene
> 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 Tuesday, 17 May 2016 04:51:03 UTC

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