Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes"

Hi Karen,

This actually does refer to a proposed requirement:
2.6.11 expressivity: closed shapes
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Requirements#Expressivity:_Closed_Shapes

--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group


Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 04/28/2015 11:21:54 AM:

> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
> Date: 04/28/2015 11:22 AM
> Subject: 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
>