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 2015-04-10 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from April 2015)

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 21:50:44 -0400
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAApBiOmrgsFJw9rHQDa4A-cfDpETCb_RQ=msgLLiJ0a-4BHx1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Peter

On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> What happens if the partial specification disagrees
> with the specification for all of SHACL?

I completely agree that we need a consistent semantics for all of
SHACL. It's up to the WG to ensure that this happens. We have this
challenge no matter how we package the spec.

-- Arthur

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 01:51:11 UTC