Re: Reusable Shapes

Is there a pointer to documentation where the working group accepted either of 
these requirements?   The closest that I can see is the acceptance of R103, 
which includes naming of constraints and recursion.

However, these minutes have not yet been approved, at least according to the 
main WG wiki page.

I don't think that either of these are best described as reusability of shapes 
or of rules within shapes.  I don't think that there is even any resolution 
that indicates that there will be rules within shapes.


PS:  Let me say, yet again, how much I miss CommonScribe.

On 11/19/2014 03:47 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2014 12:28 PM, "Dimitris Kontokostas"
> <
> <>> wrote:
>  >
>  > I came late and this thread became so big that is hard to pick it up properly.
>  >
>  > I would like to raise another related issue regarding Shapes reusability.
>  > Assuming I have X defined shapes and Y applications profiles that each
> profile can reuse any of the X defined Shapes. Is this case something that
> this WG would like to cover?
>  > If yes, what would be the proper approach to store & define Shapes?
> We have, if I recall, accepted requirements to have both reusable shapes and
> reusable rules within those shapes. So far, all of the proposed technologies
> enable that, though of course we'd want to then consider practical ways to
> overload, extend, and maybe even retract parts of reused rules.
>  > Best,
>  > Dimitris
>  >

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 12:39:28 UTC