Re: Formal objection on syntax checking in SHACL from Irene Polikoff on 2017-03-20 (public-rdf-shapes@w3.org from March 2017)

From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:37:31 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Message-Id: <29255131-51E0-410D-BAA2-6F12885B179F@topquadrant.com>

Peter,

Please clarify. Do you mean to say that two implementations could come to a different validity conclusion when processing the same data against the same not ill-formed graph? Or do you simply mean to say that they are not required to let the user know that the shapes graph is well formed?

> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The
> bigger part of this problem is not behaviour of SHACL implementations on
> ill-formed shapes graphs but their behaviour on shapes graphs that are not
> ill-formed.

Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 18:38:05 UTC