- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 08:42:36 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I think we may be confusing Requirements with the details of the actual
solution (to be done later in the process).
An alternative to splitting may be to leave it vague and add a sentence
to enumerate some open questions that need to be addressed when the
details are worked out. I am saying this because the same issue will
come up in other places (enumerations being one of them, but also the
details of :valueType and what kind of inheritance to use at property
object types). Creating a new requirement for each design alternative
would have us spend forever in the Requirements phase.
Holger
On 2/13/2015 6:35, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> +1 to the the split, and my votes are +1 and 0 respectively.
>> peter
>>
>>
>> PS: A similar issue affects Property Value Enumerations. For example, is
>> "01"^^xsd:integer valid when the enumeration is { "01"^^xsd:int }? What
>> about for { "1"^^xsd:integer }?
> Does it make sense for this to be parallel?
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 22:43:25 UTC