- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:27:57 -0700
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
The UCR document is at: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/ It does indeed say to send comments to this list. I don't see any specific user cases or requirements,although closed shapes may be implied. This is worth an issue, and I will file one. Erik, does this capture your "vote": A form of "strict" validation (borrowing XSD's terminology of "lax" and "strict") that limits valid classes, properties and values to those explicitly stated in the SHACL shape. kc On 4/27/15 12:24 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > > Erik, > > If UCR says to send comments to the list, then I believe you are using the > right venue. > > To me your e-mail didn¹t come through clearly as a comment on the SHACL > UCR because you said in response to Iovka¹s email about ShEX capabilities: > > "if all of this is already part of the requirements, then i think that's > excellent. i started this thread because arnaud told me that this > feature was not yet part of the requirements." > > It would have been much clearer if you said ³I reviewed SHACL UCR and I do > not see this requirement captured². > > I am glad we have clarified this now. > > > Irene Polikoff > > > > On 4/27/15, 3:13 PM, "Erik Wilde" <dret@berkeley.edu> wrote: > >> hello all. >> >> On 2015-04-24 08:58, Irene Polikoff wrote: >>> It looks like there is some confusion around whether this discussion is >>> about requirements for the future RDF Data Shapes (SHACL) standard or >>> about ShEx and its variants: >> >> yes, and my apologies for being unnecessarily confusing. >> >>> Erik, I believe, is wanting to support a requirement for SHACL. Further >>> complicating the matter is that Erik deferred in his requirement >>> description to the recently published (outside of the working group) >>> ShEx >>> questionnaire. >> >> i was simply lazily referring to the useful explanation in the ShEx >> questionnaire, without it making clear enough that all i wanted to do is >> refer to the explanation of open/closed/constrained shapes. >> >>> Since RDF Data Shapes (SHACL) working group has now published its first >>> public draft of the Requirements and Use Cases deliverable, I believe it >>> would be best to make SHACL requirements contribuitions in a form of the >>> review comments for this document. This would help to eliminate >>> confusion. >> >> i agree, but that's what i was trying to do. the UCR spec says that >> comments should be sent to this list, and so i did. is there a more >> formal way how to make those comments, other than sending email to this >> list? >> >> thanks and cheers, >> >> dret. >> >> -- >> erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu - tel:+1-510-2061079 | >> | UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool) | >> | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret | > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 21:28:26 UTC