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.

http://www.w3.org/2014/10/30-shapes-minutes.html

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.



peter

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"
> <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
> <mailto:kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>> 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