W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > April 2015

Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes"

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 09:31:23 -0700
Message-ID: <553BC15B.6060501@kcoyle.net>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Erik, I think I captured some of your requirements in a use case that 
comes from the Dublin Core community:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S37_Defining_allowed.2Frequired_values

In particular:

2) must be an IRI matching this pattern (e.g. 
http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/)

There is a need within the closed environment where validation will take 
place to limit the "anyone can say anything about anything" to a  set of 
known namespaces. The user story only speaks of values (objects) but 
this could also be the case for subjects and predicates.

kc



On 4/22/15 3:50 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> hello.
>
> i am not a member of the RDF shapes WG. but i have been encouraged to
> voice my opinion on the public mailing list, so here i go.
>
> it seems that the "closed shapes" feature so far is not a required
> feature for the envisioned language. i want to support this feature, and
> claim that having or not having this will make a huge difference in
> terms of how business-ready the language is.
>
> being able to exactly say what is or isn't allowed is a critical feature
> in business processes. very often, there even are validation pipelines,
> with various levels of openness and increasing levels of strictness,
> after cleanup and consolidation stages.
>
> not being able to "strict" validation (borrowing XSD's terminology of
> "lax" and "strict" and bending it a little bit here) would mean that the
> new language would only be useful for some validation tasks, but that
> others would still need to be hand-coded.
>
> having well-defined language features similar to the "wildcards" in XSD
> is critical in terms of getting RDF closer to be business-ready. in my
> work with XML, JSON, and RDF, one typical criticism of RDF is that it
> assumes well-meaning peers, and has little support for scenarios beyond
> that. supporting "closed shapes" could be one step in this direction,
> and i would like to consider the WG to make this a mandatory feature and
> provide fine-grained controls for how open/closed a model should be.
>
> thanks and kind regards,
>
> dret.
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Saturday, 25 April 2015 16:31:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:41 UTC