- From: Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:32:04 +1200
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAC_Lu0YeNO+LnVS3daRTmUNvz2dNCPkyjr0wU0H-Stafgvcb1A@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > 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. If demonstrating IRIs is your goal, bite the bullet and use one with non-ASCII characters. > * 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. Great. So include an example of how to overcome this, killing both the ambiguity and any objection in a single blow. > * 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. The more I look at this, the more the foaf: namespace is a semantic web in-joke. If the target audience is not those already immersed in the semantic web, switch to something people have seen used for real problems, like dc. cheers stuart -- ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 08:32:35 UTC