Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

Peter,

I understand this is largely just a sketch and you may be "thinking out 
loud". Yet I don't have sufficient information on how all this is 
supposed to work, e.g. with SPARQL generation. It would help if you 
could provide some examples of how this vocabulary would be used to 
define some built-in and extension constraint types. On

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_3

I am presenting snippets illustrating the definitions of 
ex:LanguageConstraintType, sh:PatternConstraintType and 
sh:ClassConstraintType. Would you mind creating similar examples in your 
metamodel?

Furthermore, I am unclear what problem you are trying to solve. What is 
broken in the current SHACL syntax that motivates your (radical) 
changes? Have any users complained or are there any related ISSUEs 
recorded? Of course we can come up with any number of syntaxes for SHACL 
and I could certainly make up plenty of variations, too.

Thanks,
Holger


On 5/03/2016 13:32, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I fixed up some silly syntax errors and added prefix declarations.  The
> attached file looks OK to the syntax checker I grabbed.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 03/04/2016 04:29 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> Turtle file doesn't parse. Could you fix this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Holger
>>
>>
>> On 5/03/2016 10:17, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2016 04:20 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>>> If you want this to be
>>>> seriously considered, please work out the details, including Turtle files etc.
>>>> Holger
>>> OK, since you asked so nicely, see the two attached files.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>

Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 02:25:15 UTC