LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  September 2016

CODE4LIB September 2016

Subject:

Re: SHACL Core abstract syntax

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:32:14 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

On 9/7/16 5:48 AM, Péter Király wrote:
> Dear Karen,
>
> some more comments
>
> The examples sometime a bit mixed, e.g.
> - the issue identifiers sometime don't match at the graph and at the
> validation result (in 5.2.1 there are two issue2, and zero issue1, in
> the sh:or's and sh:not examples there are three issue2.)
> - in 5.2.1 there are wrong language labels
> - it is not quite clear why some shapes and graphs are boxed and
> others not (in the examples).
Yes, thanks, this is an area we are cleaning up this week. I'll let you 
know when we think we've got all of the formatting consistent.

>
> Regarding to the content: I am just curious if there are LessThan and
> LessThanEquals why there is no GreaterThan and GreaterThanEquals? Yes,
> we can use a reversed statement or combine Less.. with Not, but I
> would prefer their availability.

The argument is that these are pair-wise constraints, so you would 
adjust the direction of the values rather than use GT. If you can think 
of an example of when that would not be convenient, I can take it to the 
W3C group. (This may make more sense if you look at section 4.6 of the 
main document, here[1].)

kc
[1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#constraints-property-pairs

>
> Cheers,
> Péter
>
>
> 2016-09-07 11:47 GMT+02:00 Péter Király <[log in to unmask]>:
>> Hi Karen,
>>
>> I started to reading it, and I find it quite helpful.
>>
>> I have a suggestion: for me the formal definitions (such as "Shape :=
>> label:IRI|BNode, targets:Set[Target], filters:Set[Shape],
>> constraints:Set[Constraint]") would be more readable if they would be
>> in monospace characterset - similarly than the examples.
>>
>> "This signifies that a Shape has four components called label,
>> targets, filters, constraints. The label is either a IRI or BNode, the
>> targets are a set of Targets, the filters are a set of Shapes, and the
>> constraintsis a set of Constraints."
>> Here I would expect a bit more explanations something like "targets
>> are a set of Targets (the elements which are selected as the subject
>> of validation)".
>>
>> I am not sure whether the result in the example for 5.1.3 Datatype
>> section is right. I would expect issue2 is right because it is a
>> xsd:dateTime, and issue1 is wrong because it is a xsd:date, and not
>> the other way around.
>>
>> Do you know any existing implementation or is there a project working
>> on the implementation?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Péter
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-05 17:21 GMT+02:00 Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>:
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> There is a W3C standard (SHACL)[1] in development that would address the
>>> issue of validation of RDF graphs. The standard itself is, as standards tend
>>> to be, long and not an easy read. Eric Prud'hommeaux and I (both committee
>>> members) have created a first draft of a brief reference document, in the
>>> form of an Abstract Syntax of the core vocabulary of the SHACL standard. We
>>> welcome any comments or corrections to this document, and any suggestions
>>> for making it better. The draft is at:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/
>>>
>>> Comments should be sent to the mail list at:
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> However, I will also entertain any discussion that takes place here, which
>>> feels less formal than posting to a W3C list. Our goal is to make SHACL Core
>>> as clear as possible for first time users. If this becomes a W3C standard,
>>> it will probably eventually become available in various RDF-related tools.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> kc
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject: FIRST PUBLIC WORKING DRAFT: SHACL CORE ABSTRACT SYNTAX AND
>>> SEMANTICS
>>> Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:46:10 +0000
>>> Resent-From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:45:36 -0700
>>> From: Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>> **Please forward to interested lists**
>>>
>>> As announced on the W3C blog[1], the first public working draft of the SHACL
>>> Core Abstract Syntax[2] has been published by the RDF Data Shapes Web
>>> Working Group.[3]
>>>
>>> "This document defines an abstract syntax for the core SHACL (SHApes
>>> Constraint Language). It is derived from the SHACL specification and is a
>>> non-normative version of the content of that specification."
>>>
>>> We are soliciting comments (and questions) on this first draft. Please
>>> comment at [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> ---------
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/blog/news/archives/5749
>>> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-shacl-abstract-syntax-20160825/
>>> [3] https:////www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Karen Coyle
>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
>>
>>
>> --
>> Péter Király
>> software developer
>> GWDG, Göttingen - Europeana - eXtensible Catalog - The Code4Lib Journal
>> http://linkedin.com/in/peterkiraly
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager