The SHACL group is meeting face-to-face in Lille, France on September
8-10. Prior to that time, group members have been asked to review the
current working draft [1]. I have done a start of a review of the core
features of SHACL (in sections 1-6 of the draft) compared to our
requirements, and have added this as a column in the Googledocs
spreadsheet where we have done other comparisons [2]. My comparison is
not definitive, and I would appreciate if anyone else could look at the
SHACL draft with our requirements in mind.
The main area I am unclear about (and have asked for clarification) is
in the treatment of constraints based on classes. There is no mention of
this in the SHACL draft -- only constraints on properties -- but I
suspect that this can be done in another way. I will report what I learn.
Other than that, and the requirements relating to language codes, most
of our *validation* requirements appear to be met by the core language.
SHACL also has a template mechanism that allows the creation of
constraints beyond the core. These currently use SPARQL as the template
language.
Note that there will be a public comment period in the near future in
which we can make additional comments on SHACL. I hope that some of you
can participate in the discussion that arises during that time. As we
saw with the comments by Phil Archer on the public list, comments from
outside the immediate W3C working group are vital to the development of
a standard that serves a broader community.
kc
[1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
[2]
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bCpQVyxI-N2Ca83umvQD8OKTdsDyG6Sz-E8Qo3v8ynM/edit#gid=1060352541
--
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
|