Re: SHACL syntax and metamodel complexity

I see three main areas of differences between current SHACL and your draft:

1) Shall the concepts Shape and Constraint be merged (syntactic sugar)
2) Shall SHACL constraints support arbitrary property paths instead of 
property/inverseProperty
3) Shall constraint parameters be limited to a single property only

Leaving aside the specific triples, does anyone see other major differences?

The ISSUE-133 that you raised is limited to 3) and it may be worth 
having separate issues for the two other differences, if only to 
structure the discussion.

I do not believe that there are necessary dependencies between these 
areas, and it would IMHO be more fruitful to look at them individually, 
because there are different variations even of the existing syntax 
conceivable. I do not understand why you elected to start everything 
from scratch.

Holger


On 9/03/2016 9:03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> See
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/ISSUE-95:_Metamodel_simplifications#Proposal_4
>
> On 03/06/2016 06:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>> 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 Wednesday, 9 March 2016 06:03:00 UTC