Re: RDF Data Shapes agenda for 9 June 2016

I saw the references to ISSUE-41 in the latest discussions but I wasn't 
sure which needs to be closed first given that the two sort of depend on 
each other. I'm happy to try and close ISSUE-41 first though. Supposedly 
we may now have enough justification for adding property paths. I assume 
Simon won't object. ;-)
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud




From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   06/08/2016 06:23 PM
Subject:        Re: RDF Data Shapes agenda for 9 June 2016





On 9/06/2016 7:12, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
Here is the agenda for this week's call. Given the traffic around 
issue-139 and its potential impact on the spec I expect it to take most of 
our time but feel free to point out other issues you think we could make 
progress on.

I believe ISSUE-139 is highly impacted by ISSUE-41 which has been 
unresolved for a while now. I believe it would be good to decide (one way 
or another) whether and how property paths are to be supported. It is 
related to ISSUE-139 because having path validators would lead to fewer 
SPARQL queries, but it would also open a fourth type of constraints. In a 
demo to a customer today I also received more evidence that path-based 
constraints would be a useful feature to have, so I'll vote +1 for their 
inclusion, e.g. similar to

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Jun/0004.html


Holger


Thanks.

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.06.09
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud