RE: Status of the "redefining and including other SHEX definitions" discussion?

Hi Olivier,


I put up this list interesting features that we could at to shex. Note that I put here a list of current discussion points https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/ShEx/CurrentDiscussion. This is the list of topics I currently discuss on with eric and the others.
I created this current discussion list to prevent to much spread of attention and that we can work to gather first fixing the core and then adding more and more feature.

Note there is also a more broader discussion of whether the core of SHEX should include (class) semantics or not or that there should be an additional layer for that. So the shape extension or including of other shape into a parent shape does not automatically imply it is a subclass.

As eric is finished setting up the documents to start the group we can discuss with eric how we can best organize further discussion on the different topics.

Oliver, I did see also you ShExZ.pdf, which looks nice. You might want to take a look into my validator
https://github.com/jessevdam/shextest/blob/master/js/validate.js. This is my complete validator, which is only 300 lines in total including comments. Note there is also logic there to prevent loops from happening. For the description of the objects look here https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/ValidationCode (some items are outdated). See attachment for the overview of the objects (slightly outdated).

Greetz,
 Jesse





________________________________
Van: Olivier Rossel [olivier.rossel@gmail.com]
Verzonden: maandag 26 mei 2014 12:16
Aan: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Onderwerp: Status of the "redefining and including other SHEX definitions" discussion?

Hi all,

a wishlist for additional ShEx features is available at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Discussion_SHEX_format

One feature sounds especially interesting: "Redefining and including other SHEX definitions"
(cf http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Discussion_SHEX_format#Discussion_2.2C_redefining_and_including_other_SHEX_definitions )


Quote:

"With the current implementation a redefinition means that both rules must be satisfied, which is good.

However, in some cases you would like to either

  1.  indicate is that is either should apply to the first or the new rule (what we want in this example)
  2.  redefine the rule completely
  3.  remove the rule"

Another quote:
"To be able to update/redefine subgroup they should be named."


Is there a common agreement on the list that this is VERY useful for modularization, lifecycle and reuse of schemas?
This point has been very poorly addressed by the XmlSchema community, and I really would like to point
out the importance of that feature.
(I have absolutely no clue about the difficulty to implement it, btw :)