Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes"

I did find this:

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/actions/20

ACTION-20: Update description of 2.6.11 expressivity: closed shapes to 
address concerns expressed to date

However, that has not resulted in an issue or a requirement. I believe 
it refers to one version of the ShEx specification. If so, that does not 
promulgate it to the working group activities as a whole. I'm still 
looking to create an issue for this, but looking for help on wording.

kc

On 4/25/15 9:31 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 28 April 2015 18:22:24 UTC