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

Re: Remaining issues with impact on the syntax

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:52:29 -0500
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161113225227.GA8319@w3.org>
* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2016-11-11 10:46+1000]
> 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).

The implications are all in the abstract syntax document. I understood the expression of it in the SHACL doc as being an editorial issue. The text in the abstract syntax document is very similar to the expression in the current partition text. (There are also two implementations that run in a JVM, Iovka's Java implementation and Jose's Scala implementation.)


> 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
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2016 22:52:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 13 November 2016 22:52:39 UTC