Shall we redo the 1.3 example (was: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)) from Holger Knublauch on 2016-05-16 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from May 2016)

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 17:33:02 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <329f8e5e-f5d3-3a8d-454d-056d2d9f32d4@topquadrant.com>

On 16/05/2016 8:04, Karen Coyle wrote:
> It's not just that it has no scope - it is a particular kind of shape, 
> a shape-based constraint component, and probably shouldn't be in that 
> first example at all. 

Each time I am re-reading the spec I stumble across the complexity of 
this very first example. Is this supposed to:
a) serve as a human-readable starting point
b) show off some cool features (that motivate SHACL)
c) provide a walk-through of key features?

I suggest we select a much simpler example - something like validating 
instances of schema:Person and just a single shape.

There will be plenty of other examples in other documents (tutorials and 
primers) in the future. Not our job.

Thoughts?

Holger

Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 07:33:35 UTC