Re: concluding on UCR

On 11/07/2017 2:32, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> Simon, thoughts on Irene's comments here?
>
> Anyone else have any comments or concerns?
>
> If you're fine delegating to a consensus between Simon and Irene, 
> please reply +1, now.

+1

(and thanks)
Holger


>
>    -- Sandro
>
> On 06/17/2017 03:51 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote:
>> 4.5.3 R11.8 looks to me as identical to 4.5.6 R12.3. I suggest 
>> removing one of them.
>>
>> I am not sure about 4.5.4 R12.1 and 4.5.2 R9. They are both based on 
>> the same use case, but are stated slightly differently from each other.
>>
>> The problem is that I do not see an obvious relationship between the 
>> use case and these requirements. The use case basically says that the 
>> validation does not have to rely on all nodes in the graph being 
>> connected to each other. And, indeed, targets address this use case. 
>> But both of the requirement statements are about something else. They 
>> imply that there should be a target that says “validate every 
>> resource in the graph against this constraint”. Such thing doesn’t 
>> exist - other than you enumerate all resources explicitly in the 
>> target. However, the requirement explicitly says "without referring 
>> to a specific set of resources or class". Further, the use case 
>> doesn’t support the requirement and there is no other use case that 
>> supports the requirement. I suggest removing one of the requirements. 
>> And re-wording the remaining requirement to address the use case.
>>
>> For 4.5.1 R8, I would add something that indicates that when a shape 
>> is also a class, then complex shapes can be created by associating 
>> property constraints directly with classes. Subclass shape would then 
>> have all the constraints of the parent class shape plus its own.
>>
>> Otherwise, looks good.
>>
>>> On Jun 16, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great. Can people please take a look and say if they think it's good 
>>> to publish as a note? Thanks.
>>>
>>> - Sandro
>>>
>>> On June 16, 2017 2:47:52 AM EDT, Simon Steyskal 
>>> <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at> wrote:
>>> fyi: I've just finished updating the UCR (cf. commit [1])
>>>
>>> br simon
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/11609d69a14545a3cd50e89619c4d81b648faad2 
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal
>>> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
>>>
>>> www: http://www.steyskal.info/  twitter: @simonsteys
>>>
>>> Am 2017-06-12 20:53, schrieb Simon Steyskal:
>>>   Hi!
>>>     I'll give the UCR a final read tmrw and report back as soon as I'm
>>>   finished.
>>>     br simon
>>>   Hi!
>>>   I'll give the UCR a final read tmrw and report back as soon as I'm
>>>   finished.
>>>   br simon
>>>   -------- Original message --------
>>>   From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>>>   Date: 6/12/17 20:38 (GMT+01:00)
>>>   To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>>   Subject: charter nominally extended + old drafts
>>>     For people who didn't see the AC announcement last week when 
>>> SHACL was
>>>     published, the WG was also extended by two months, so it can help
>>>   address any issues that might arise during the AC review of SHACL.
>>>   I
>>>   don't expect we'll need to meet, and we should not take up any new
>>>   work.
>>>     I just noticed, though, that there are two old Working Drafts:
>>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
>>>   and
>>>   https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-abstract-syntax/
>>>     These should be republished as WG NOTEs.   If there's no useful
>>>   consensus text in them, as I can imagine might be the case with 
>>> absyn,
>>>     the NOTE can just be a status section explaining why the draft was
>>>   abandoned.
>>>     Thoughts on these?   Any last minute cleanup to UCR? What should we
>>>   do
>>>   about AbSyn?
>>>            -- Sandro
>>>   -------- Original message --------From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>>>   Date: 6/12/17  20:38  (GMT+01:00) To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>>   Subject: charter nominally extended + old drafts
>>>   For people who didn't see the AC announcement last week when SHACL 
>>> was
>>>   published, the WG was also extended by two months, so it can help
>>>   address any issues that might arise during the AC review of 
>>> SHACL.    I
>>>   don't expect we'll need to meet, and we should not take up any new
>>>   work.
>>>     I just noticed, though, that there are two old Working Drafts:
>>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-ucr/
>>>   and
>>>   https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl-abstract-syntax/
>>>     These should be republished as WG NOTEs.   If there's no useful
>>>   consensus text in them, as I can imagine might be the case with 
>>> absyn,
>>>   the NOTE can just be a status section explaining why the draft was
>>>   abandoned.
>>>     Thoughts on these?   Any last minute cleanup to UCR? What should we
>>>   do
>>>   about AbSyn?
>>>            -- Sandro
>
>

Received on Monday, 10 July 2017 21:31:14 UTC