Re: shapes-ISSUE-43 (SHACL-Part-1-FPWD): Proposal for creating the FPWD of SHACL Part 1 [SHACL Spec]

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

I don't think that this is a good idea.

I fear that pushing forward with the document will only open up further
fault lines.  The working group will then spend even more time addressing
these surface manifestations instead of the underlying forces.

There are some substantive topics that might be worthwhile to address while
waiting for the clock to run out on the really fundamental ones, including:
- - Is SPARQL (or some other expressively powerful language) a full part of
  SHACL?
- - How should recursive shapes be handled?
- - Are the control and data graphs different?
- - What is the relationship between shapes and classes?
- - Where does RDFS fit into SHACL?

However, even these are not nearly as important as the formal underpinnings
of SHACL.

My view is that the working group should now be trying to figure out how to
resolve this overarching issue.

peter


On 04/09/2015 06:45 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> I am not claiming that Part 1 is perfect as-is. I expect the WG to 
> identify issues and propose solutions. Can we at least try this approach
> for a few weeks and see if we are making progress? Let's focus on the
> important gaps instead of word-smithing and voting on property names.
> 
> -- Arthur
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJzKCAAoJECjN6+QThfjzf5QH/AvBX5UVZletbdXsv47nq7gO
AaeKkV3cNapfz2lc3Qp0kqN8q2wTWvBlY+C/OPNSc2lNlQwfaRb1kiTMt0ZFrEp2
Dkq7N93rbCHAq4G1feEmvnQ8dyUlti7GtqPVpm5hnxUZHIrYYVK+annZl+J7myu7
TysmnIeCpWa6iwutm6YumwdFlJua8BjpO1W/LKvzr/QIOci3YvLFKDN8TG3d92Ps
Fo8MrL0FSxmmLR0zMc+k9hv4F9/tUuNv1xnAp2p9z4LMFEXGrWK6y2QnfSjlK3+K
05vuh35EdB8aCZFIf9r5+fu0ukecqI4SgWQ/k9Kxt6uglb/ncjii5TYl6DxzPoc=
=x3qO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 02:17:05 UTC