- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 15:53:04 -0800
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I was also considering this to be a problem. I have a modest proposal that eats away at the complexity by refactoring constraints and shapes. I was hoping to get the proposal out a bit earlier, but should be sending it out later today. peter On 03/02/2016 03:24 PM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > Looking through the metamodel proposals¹, it seems that a lot of the > complexity comes from the fact that triple constraints, inverse triple > constraints, and filter constraints are different beasts. What are the > use cases that motivate filters? > > The XML Schema WG provided only one way, a processing instruction, to > associate XML elements with types in a schema. Years later, WSDL added > another, associating parts of the REST I/O for some endpoint with > types in some schema. The processing instruction seems analogous to > the sh:classShape property connecting instances of some class to a > given shape. The WSDL analog would fit naturally in some LDP doc. > > > ¹ <https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3> >
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 23:53:37 UTC