AW: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016

regrets from my side too..
I'm currently travelling and my hotel's internet connection is way worse than expected.
will join (and scribe) again next week.
simon-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> Datum: 19.05.2016  08:43  (GMT+01:00) An: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org> Betreff: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 19 May 2016 
Regrets for missing today's telco
All my votes are in the proposals page, regarding the agenda issues
issue 141: I would prefer to keep the current design (sh:class / sh:datatype), if this is not possible, I would favor 3cthe behavior of 3a is non-deterministic and depends on data on the data graphe.g. ex:A ex:p "asdf"^^ex:myDTmight or might not pass validation depending on if ex:myDT a rdfs:Literal exists in the data graphand here we also have the inference issue for subclasses of rdfs:Literal which complicates the constrainte.g. one might have ex:myDT a ex:Literal in the data graph and ex:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal somewhere else
3b cannot express non-xsd datatypes which, imho is out of the question
The behavior of 3c is consistent and depends only on shape definitionsthe equivalent shapes definition would beex:S sh:property [  sh:predicate ex:p  sh:type ex:myDT  sh:nodeKind sh:Literal]
3c needs 2 constraints (sh:type / sh:nodeKind) but so does the existing design (sh:class / sh:datatype) we cannot simplify definitions without loosing something
issue 133: I would favor my proposal of courseI also have a draft revision ready on a separate branch if acceptedhttps://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/compare/editorial-dk

Regarding the draft publicationI think the resolution of issue 133 needs to be integrated in the spec before publicationwe also need to discuss where to position the current section 3 (shapes & validation) or how this needs to changeif sections 1-3 become consistent and flow well, the rest of the spec will be easy to manage

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
Here is the agenda for tomorrow. FYI, I
put ISSUE-133 on it as a reference for a syntax related discussion although
it's clear that there are several related issues.
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.19
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies
- IBM Cloud




-- 

Dimitris Kontokostas

Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia AssociationProjects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://aligned-project.eu
Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas

Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT