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

Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:19:44 -0800
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <a74e267d-3822-7212-3f37-8cbf7dbbf16e@kcoyle.net>
There are still a number of "issues" in the list of comments from 
Peter.[1] I don't believe we have looked carefully at those, and we need 
to decide which ones are editorial, which are substantive, and which 
should be captured in tracker. A good first step would be to be sure 
that we have noted which ones are resolved, so we don't waste time on them.

kc
[1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Comments/September2016/

On 11/10/16 4:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I believe we are supposed to publish another working draft before
> reaching CR status at the end of this year. If we want to give enough
> room for feedback I think we ought to do this soon after the upcoming
> virtual face to face meeting.
>
> Looking at the list of open tickets, many are entirely editorial and
> others could be closed simply because we ran out of time and won't be
> able to give them justice (e.g. ISSUE-179, ISSUE-176). However, there
> remain some tickets with impact on the syntax and implementations:
>
> ISSUE-92: partitions
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92
> Eric promised to work on an update to the partition chapter. Without
> progress, I don't think we can include these features. We risk running
> out of time, and I want to be in a position where I understand all
> implications for an implementation (e.g. the potential worst-case
> complexity).
>
> ISSUE-180: Path nodes.
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/180
> The suggestion is to change the path syntax so that IRIs are always
> named predicates while all path expressions (inverses etc) must be
> bnodes. I believe Dimitris and I agree on this change.
>
> ISSUE-186: validation report properties.
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/186
> The suggestion is a simple vocabulary fix:
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0040.html
>
>
> The latter two are hopefully easy to resolve in the next meeting.
>
> A big unknown remains the topic of pre-binding (ISSUE-68 and ISSUE-170).
> The SPARQL EXISTS group seems to be making slow but steady progress, yet
> we need this done before we can move to CR.
>
> BTW what ever happened to the Compact Syntax? It looks like we are
> running out of time and it won't happen. Maybe a differentiator for ShEx?
>
> Holger
>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2016 21:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 13 November 2016 21:20:21 UTC