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 forward.) kc [1] https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Main_Page#Implementations 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: >> >> 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 > > -- Karen Coyle [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net m: +1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600