Re: [CODE4LIB] SHACL Core abstract syntax

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Karen Coyle <> 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 <> (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
>|org|etc.[1] We used it when trying to show different IRIs,
> and where "" and "" 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.


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.


...let us be heard from red core to black sky

Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 08:32:35 UTC