W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > September 2016

Re: [CODE4LIB] SHACL Core abstract syntax

From: Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 22:42:42 +1200
Message-ID: <CAC_Lu0Z2h0F-6Hw+ckh3foVQzzjn-UTM-xwyZKHacoYa5ostDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
This is fabulous.

Some feedback, based on a relatively quick look (I may have overlooked

* 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>.

* 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.


...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 --------
> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:44 UTC