- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 05:39:02 -0800
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- CC: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/05/2015 11:57 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > * Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> [2015-02-06 01:56-0500] >> In ShapeRequirements, I've reworked the definitions in 2.5 in terms of >> shapes. Below is a simplified diff of the differences. With Holger's >> approval, I'll make these changes and then remove the shapes/classes >> objections. > > I've reworded the requirements for Complex Constraints. The first patch > below replaces the umbrella requirement for Complex Constraints with a > specific requirement for Constraint Extensions because having umbrella > requirements is confusing and because that requirement appeared to be > about extensibility. The rest are re-definitions of existing > requirements. Again, with Holger's approval, I'll make these changes. > > > --- Requirements/Complex Constraints 2015-02-06 02:50:54.408836654 -0500 > +++ ShapeRequirements/Complex Constraints 2015-02-06 02:50:54.416832654 > -0500 @@ -1,3 +1,5 @@ === Complex Constraints === > > -The language should allow users to implement constraints that check > complex conditions, with an expressivity as covered by the following > sub-requirements (e.g. basic graph patterns, string and mathematical > operations and comparison of multiple values). +==== Constraint > Extensions ==== + +Shapes will have a defined extension mechanism > enabling other languages to provide supplementary constraints, (e.g. > basic graph patterns, string and mathematical operations and comparison > of multiple values). I see this as an unwelcome change. This section is not about extension mechanisms, it is instead about expressivity. If there is to be an extension mechanism it should be in a separate section. > @@ -27,5 +29,5 @@ > > ==== Expressivity: Non-Existence of Patterns ==== > > -Many constraints require that a certain pattern does not exist in the > graph. +Shapes will constraint on the absense as well as the presence of > arcs. > > @@ -37,5 +39,5 @@ > > ==== Expressivity: String Operations ==== > > -Some constraints require building new strings out of other strings, and > building new URIs out of other values. +Shapes will provide string and > URI manipulation. > > @@ -47,5 +49,5 @@ > > ==== Expressivity: Language Tags ==== > > -Some constraints require comparing language tags of RDF literals, e.g. > to check that no language is used more than once per property. Also to > produce multi-lingual error messages. +Shapes will constrain on presence > and uniqueness of language tags. > > @@ -57,5 +59,5 @@ > > ==== Expressivity: Mathematical Operations ==== > > -Some constraints require mathematical calculations and comparisons, e.g. > area = width * height. +Shapes will provide numeric manipulation. > > @@ -67,5 +69,5 @@ > > ==== Expressivity: Literal Value Comparison ==== > > -Some constraints require operators such as <, <=, != etc, either against > constants or other values that are dynamically retrieved at query time. > Includes date/time comparison. +Shapes will provide numeric and date > comparison. > The new wording for most of these is too terse. What are these facilities to be used for? peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU1MP2AAoJECjN6+QThfjzgIYIAL6Oa2i5DkWkPFOaB/Zj0yYU e2Z7/ubC7ycZ9nnqNlpsHc0tA9rA7wKMFsentUAzSl++niycdf1F9CEdc3X0K2IA Rk/6kdp4d7FTjrtK9p3QDMFJ6KOY+reEWxyuCfS88Fxp+5yXBz5J6jk6K6HeO6NF rvU7T6UJ6aYNG+LkQC4UTNk4lQTUgk5z9cN4oEnZpxPMh3/8O6LvB1nPLC1E2zhk FtjeF64qp1cMARKKbRqjelwoXLH1pPFZ7Y9XzpSQezyARGDPWO+ZhF4/b7/bU3zy AbP22GdAukxy/0geFouDKZt0L789SVtPAXRBdmxCHo52jdbVjqQR4uTkCFY88oU= =ugqH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 6 February 2015 13:39:31 UTC