- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 09:50:02 -0400
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Do we want to discuss recursion just to see if anything could or should be done? As for the appendix with the SHACL-for-SHACL, my understanding was that it should be “normative” - whatever this means. For example, does it mean that we should say “Shapes graph that doesn’t pass validation against SHACL-for-SHACL is ill formed”? > On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:48 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > Agenda for this week's meeting: https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2017.04.05 > > This may or may not be a short meeting as the only real topic is the SHACL-for-SHACL file which is holding up CR. > > Holger > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2017 13:50:39 UTC