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: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:27:57 -0700
Message-ID: <553EA9DD.90500@kcoyle.net>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
The UCR document is at:


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.


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 didn╣t come through clearly as a comment on the SHACL
> UCR because you said in response to Iovka╣s 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 │I reviewed SHACL UCR and I do
> not see this requirement captured▓.
> 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

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