- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 06:39:16 -0500
- To: Iovka Boneva <iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Iovka, I have developed a complete Z specification for your draft Core SHACL Semantics. I took a snapshot of that document on June 22. I just posted my Z spec at [1]. The source is at Github and has been type-checked using fuzz. My Z spec is a lot longer than your draft because Z forces you to spell out all the details. This process exposed a number of issues. I posted some questions addressed to you on June 24 on the mailing list but you didn't reply to any of them. I have collected the issues in Section 6 of [1]. What are your plans for your draft? Do you still think it's the right way to formalize recursion? I found your approach to be well-founded but it was unclear to me that it matched my intuition. Part of the problem is the issues I found. I cannot do much more until those issues are addressed. If you are able to verify that my spec correctly formalizes your draft and you can respond to my issues, then I'll continue to consider as part of my proposal for ACTION-22. One thought was that I could translate it into Coq so that I could run it on some samples and get more comfortable with the implications. However, if you don't plan to do anything more with your draft, then I'll take another approach to proposing a semantics for recursion, more aligned with my proposal in [2]. Thanks. [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.00384 [2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04972 -- Arthur
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 11:39:44 UTC