- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 11:38:06 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Peter, I wouldn't consider the extension mechanism an "add-on." It has to be fully integrated with the SHACL language. However, I'm not sure how this changes the work of the group, nor if that distinction is significant for users of SHACL. Perhaps you could say more about your concern? kc On 3/28/15 1:39 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > shapes-ISSUE-32 (SHACL+-): SHACL = high-level + extensions ? [SHACL > Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/32 > > Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider On product: SHACL Spec > > Is SHACL going to be a high-level language with an extension > mechanism as an add-on or is SHACL going to be a single language with > some portion of it designated as the simple portion? > > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2015 18:38:35 UTC