Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Having an independent specification for the high-level part of SHACL is a
bad idea in my opinion.  What happens if the partial specification disagrees
with the specification for all of SHACL?

That said, I have nothing against providing a specification for just the
high-level part of SHACL provided that this specification is clearly
subservient to the specification for all of SHACL.

peter


On 04/02/2015 01:07 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJxEPAAoJECjN6+QThfjzSU8IANEzubIx55R2VH+yhW4td24s
VBYqmuBffF602CbnhiNjB6pfg4UIz/yjY2cb/fFM3KW+xvqYdai2VR0cr8sYstGq
A8qI1VTSS8N2TpEICf34sprdaU55g0+2+taqdZo7pkagHBWM/JibZ9On/071/KaG
ewiMNWTWLq9ATKZNIoYJ5YprW/8A9GT5tvjFoSxXAV28nhQuLWLLLKphaEPGJ3CS
Anb1E5SQ2z2gjoPDkhQHgXYlVMQ2YyzMNiNlue+0uyWHMFh0eE/kAjAHX1s7lkHi
wpUJo9CjzM+6VXANV1p8lXNrpAwFHJtPHBRJLx0OImhA54tIMbV0ca2l6koTYCA=
=EUkY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 23:54:22 UTC