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

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

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 09:22:19 -0700
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <573C96BB.7090900@kcoyle.net>


On 5/15/16 10:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> If all shapes are to have scopes then there are ways around this problem.  One
>>>would be that shapes are not embedded in other shapes.  Instead there would be
>>>a new kind of SHACL thing that is used when the current effect of embedding
>>>shapes in shapes is desired.

+1. I can't think of a good name for these, but it seems to me that we have:

SHACL "file" (data set, whatever) - a set of shapes and constraints
shape - defines a scope, optional filters, and related constraints
constraint - the node that defines a set constraints that will be 
applied to the focus node
[X] - a set of constraints

[X] can be a blank node, as it is in many shapes, or it may have an IRI, 
which is what was formerly illustrated in Example 1. (This assumes that 
the only difference between them is IRI-v-bNode.)

The "embedded" vs. "referenced" doesn't make sense in an RDF context, to 
my mind. It has instead to do with whether the constraints are 
local-only (bnode) or shareable (IRI).

kc
p.s. This doesn't take into account Holger's latest proposal to place 
shapes sub constraints, but I don't think that makes a difference here

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 16:22:47 UTC

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