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

Re: ISSUE-140: Suggestion to close

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 03:54:23 -0400
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20161031075421.GA11092@w3.org>
* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2016-10-31 09:29+1000]
> Thanks for your work on the results tables, Eric. I have seen your pull
> request but I disagree with deleting the sh:targetXY triples from the
> examples. These need to be restored IMHO.

I think this gets to the heart of the issue. In earlier discussions,
several of us said that dedicating a schema to a specific dataset is
an antipattern. targetNode is particularly problematic in tha respect
but even the rest of target* leave open questions. Most of your
examples use targetClass which requires a specific type arc. If the
data serves multiple purposes (e.g. an ex:SalesContact and an
ex:User), you need discriminating type arcs for all the roles it may
play.

Is TopQuadrant's use case addressed by the target* section as it
stands in my proposal?


> (See https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/pull/22/files)
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 26/10/2016 22:01, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> >* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2016-10-07 10:59+1000]
> >>We are down to 14 open issues right now, and I am keen on making further
> >>progress. My take is the sooner we have the formal list of open issues down,
> >>the earlier we can focus on the informal issues raised from the outside.
> >>
> >>ISSUE-140 was last discussed
> >>
> >>https://www.w3.org/2016/09/27-shapes-minutes.html#item08
> >>
> >>but I have to confess I did not quite understand what problem Eric was
> >>referring to. It seems that Eric was merely pointing out that validation can
> >>be defined independently from specific node selection (i.e. target)
> >>mechanisms. I of course agree with that. Could you clarify?
> >I've forked the spec and gone through about half of the examples (up
> >to sh:and) and added tabular summaries:
> >
> >https://ericprud.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
> >
> >I believe this helps readers and addresses this issue.
> >
> >
> >>Ted seemed to request some more detail in the spec about how the validation
> >>of individual nodes is supposed to happen. We already have one such
> >>interface, the sh:hasShape function, which can be invoked to trigger the
> >>validation of a given node against a given shape. We have no such interface
> >>for the case in which only a node is given. But we also don't formally
> >>define how the validation is triggered in the general, whole-graph case. We
> >>could potentially add a function sh:validateNode(?node) that validates the
> >>given node against all shapes with matching targets. But then people will
> >>likely complain that we are adding yet another SPARQL implementation
> >>requirement. Alternatively, Ted, could you clarify how else we can meet your
> >>requirement?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Holger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>On 23/09/2016 10:11, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> >>>I had raised https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/140 myself,
> >>>primarily as a reminder that validation of individual nodes should be
> >>>mentioned in the spec. I have meanwhile added a sentence which IMHO
> >>>addresses this need.
> >>>
> >>>PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-140 as addressed by https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/2046305962be7cd47400e7a2b51cd2841dca398c
> >>>
> >>>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 Monday, 31 October 2016 07:54:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:37 UTC