W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-dxwg-wg@w3.org > September 2019

Re: [dxwg] Create a use case and requirement for "central" authoritative validation rules (#597)

From: Rob Atkinson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 05:11:11 +0000
To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-527742484-1567573869-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
OK - this needs to be looked at differently:
a) W3C publishes several different constraint languages - some explicitly called constraint languages such as SHACL - and others which are specifications which constrain usages  or semantics of other syntaxes - RDFS and OWL for example constrain the RDF model.  anyway this really isnt worth arguing about because it doesnt change anything.

If your chosen "constraint language" is english, or some profile of it such as https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 - its (probably) not a machine readable one - but it may still express validatable constraints.  

i agree with the comment "I say we drop this entirely since I don't think we are prepared to develop a more comprehensive model. " 

and re-assert that I think this particular statement indicates the discussion has drifted off scope:
" It has to do with whether there is any way to measure "correctness" between separate expressions of the profile. As I explain above, if I have a set of documents that could potentially harbor contradictions between them I have no way to establishing correctness if they are all of equal "truth". 

that said - i wonder if there is a better pathway to the a solution here:

1) "specification" role might be too hard to define and we drop it - people can always redefine it later because the model allows it - and frankly it doesnt add much canonical machine processing value.
2) add another property of resources to indicate "normative" vs "informative" - allowed to multi-valued and not disjoint so wordy documents that contain normative and informative clauses can be flagged as both

either way - this has little to do with the resolution of _this_ issue - either such a Use Case is supplied or its not. This issue may be held open - but its not relevant to the 3PWD milestone now as no UC has been supplied in time. If anyone wants to pursue a specific improvement based on the discussions then open a new targetted issue for the improvement and generate a PR with a reviewable proposal and/or add it as an agenda item to the meetings.

GitHub Notification of comment by rob-metalinkage
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/597#issuecomment-527742484 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2019 05:11:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:42:20 UTC