Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] from Arthur Ryman on 2015-04-02 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2015)

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 16:07:09 -0400
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAApBiO=cAirLYAPMUdFhW58++aa9q4c2mDezeCJvMHNnDYG7jQ@mail.gmail.com>

Peter,

I hope so. However, I believe that we can and should state the
semantics of a HL SHACL independently of an extension mechanism. That
semantics would be enriched by the inclusion of extensions.

-- Arthur

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:35 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/31
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL, with the high-level language constructs defined using that semantics, or are there going to be two semantics for SHACL, one for the high-level constructs and another for the rest.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:07:35 UTC