shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] from RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker on 2015-03-28 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from March 2015)

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 20:35:59 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1YbxSZ-000064-Ai@deneb.w3.org>

shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/31

Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
On product: SHACL Spec

Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL, with the high-level language constructs defined using that semantics, or are there going to be two semantics for SHACL, one for the high-level constructs and another for the rest.

Received on Saturday, 28 March 2015 20:36:00 UTC