- From: Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:42:42 +1200
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Message-ID: <CAC_Lu0Z2h0F-6Hw+ckh3foVQzzjn-UTM-xwyZKHacoYa5ostDQ@mail.gmail.com>
This is fabulous. Some feedback, based on a relatively quick look (I may have overlooked things) * In the examples, please use .example.org (or similar) rather than .example. More people will find it obvious. * It's not clear whether SHACL is checking against the RDF graph with or without the implicit reverse relationships. * It would be good to have an example of the form: <user1> ex:relationship <user2>. and testing the shape against both <user1> and <user2> * Many of the examples have names that don't seem to quite line up. ALGEBRAICS EXAMPLE 3 has multiple <user2>s. PARAMETERS EXAMPLE 10 has two <issue2>s. PARAMETERS EXAMPLE 3 has <NoActionIssueShape> vs <IssueShape>. etc. * You use foaf: quite a bit, but never define it (yes, we all know what it stands for, but you should still reference it). * I would be very much inclined to include a more extensive example. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Karen Coyle <lists@kcoyle.net> wrote: > Folks, > > There is a W3C standard (SHACL)[1] in development that would address the > issue of validation of RDF graphs. The standard itself is, as standards > tend to be, long and not an easy read. Eric Prud'hommeaux and I (both > committee members) have created a first draft of a brief reference > document, in the form of an Abstract Syntax of the core vocabulary of the > SHACL standard. We welcome any comments or corrections to this document, > and any suggestions for making it better. The draft is at: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/ > > Comments should be sent to the mail list at: > > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > > However, I will also entertain any discussion that takes place here, which > feels less formal than posting to a W3C list. Our goal is to make SHACL > Core as clear as possible for first time users. If this becomes a W3C > standard, it will probably eventually become available in various > RDF-related tools. > > Thanks, > kc > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/ > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: FIRST PUBLIC WORKING DRAFT: SHACL CORE ABSTRACT SYNTAX AND > SEMANTICS > Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:46:10 +0000 > Resent-From: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:45:36 -0700 > From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> > Reply-To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net > To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org> > > **Please forward to interested lists** > > As announced on the W3C blog[1], the first public working draft of the > SHACL Core Abstract Syntax[2] has been published by the RDF Data Shapes Web > Working Group.[3] > > "This document defines an abstract syntax for the core SHACL (SHApes > Constraint Language). It is derived from the SHACL specification and is a > non-normative version of the content of that specification." > > We are soliciting comments (and questions) on this first draft. Please > comment at public-rdf-shapes@w3.org. > > --------- > [1] https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5749 > [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/ > [3] https:////www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/ > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: +1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2016 10:43:12 UTC