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

Re: [CODE4LIB] SHACL Core abstract syntax

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 13:26:04 -0700
To: "Stuart A. Yeates" <syeates@gmail.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-ID: <4b15dfd2-b70a-a62c-7f01-f05554c41019@kcoyle.net>
Thanks, Stuart. Some replies below:

On 9/6/16 3:42 AM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
> This is fabulous.
>
> Some feedback, based on a relatively quick look (I may have overlooked
> things)
>
> * In the examples, please use .example.org <http://example.org> (or
> similar) rather than .example. More people will find it obvious.

It's true that .example is less "usual", but it is in the same RFC as 
example.com|org|etc.[1] We used it when trying to show different IRIs, 
and where "a.example.com" and "b.example.com" would be from the same 
domain. That said, we take your point and will consider other ways to 
make the different IRIs show up better.

>
> * It's not clear whether SHACL is checking against the RDF graph with or
> without the implicit reverse relationships.

One thing that we didn't say here, and perhaps need to (although in a 
sense it belongs in the main document), is that SHACL, like SPARQL, 
operates over an RDF graph and does not modify it. Only the *explicit* 
data graph is in play. We think that we can make a brief statement in 
the introduction, since it obviously is a point of confusion.

>
> * It would be good to have an example of the form:
>
> <user1> ex:relationship <user2>.
>
> and testing the shape against both <user1> and <user2>

We're thinking about how to do that. Do you have a specific example in 
mind? Otherwise, we'll probably include one that uses foaf:Person, which 
seems like an obvious choice.

>
> * 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.

We had a number of copy-and-paste errors, some of which have already 
been corrected in the version in github[2]. I've promised to make a 
careful read-though (again :-() of the examples.

>
> * You use foaf: quite a bit, but never define it (yes, we all know what
> it stands for, but you should still reference it).

Yes. We should. We will.

>
> * I would be very much inclined to include a more extensive example.

We will take this under advisement. However, if we create a primer in 
this suite of documents, it might fit better there. Either way, some 
more "complete" examples will be on our list.

Thanks again,
kc

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606#section-2
[2] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-abstract-syntax/

>
> 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
> <mailto: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/
>     <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
>     Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:45:36 -0700
>     From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>>
>     Reply-To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>     To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto:public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
>     <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org <mailto: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
>     <mailto:public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>.
>
>     ---------
>     [1] https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5749
>     <https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5749>
>     [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/
>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/>
>     [3] https:////www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/
>     <http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/>
>
>
>     --
>     Karen Coyle
>     kcoyle@kcoyle.net <mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net
>     m: +1-510-435-8234 <tel:%2B1-510-435-8234>
>     skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 <tel:%2B1-510-984-3600>
>
>

-- 
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 20:26:35 UTC

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