Hi, Péter, thanks for your comments. I will check the 5.1.3 section - I 
have just done a read-through for typos and other issues, so this would 
fit with the update I'm about to do. I will also try out the monospace 
and see how it looks - it's true that in the current font some of the 
characters get run together and are hard to read.

There are two existing implementations, as listed here:[1] - Topbraid 
composer is one, and RDFUnit is another. (The others on that page were 
announced as being possible, but I haven't heard that they have gone 



On 9/7/16 2:47 AM, Péter Király wrote:
> 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:
>> 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]
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> 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]
>> [2]
>> [3] https:////
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> [log in to unmask]
>> m: +1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

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