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 <[email protected]>:
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:
[email protected]
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: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 09:45:36 -0700
From: Karen Coyle <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
**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 [email protected].
---------
[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
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
--
Karen Coyle
[email protected] http://kcoyle.net
m: +1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
