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

OK, then let's try to get this issue resolved, as it has a lot of
implications for SHACL.

peter

On 04/09/2015 06:50 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 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
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJzLfAAoJECjN6+QThfjzJvkIAK3YQmFH38iHesGsxfVe+TsX
xctE2GCj/aqW/orgyZglnuJ4qw1IKuYLu5h1XENqSFgU4Cp+tmOoFNcCfvDtlEP8
zbwMHFJ84M6qjjlmK9jFOzrz/VePDqjIxdzPaRVj/42oyi9zkIXdTSzBQ2gfLiWD
vuBlf4q3lfgKuB2W+MjGIRAKJpBMwZO9YcEskBZ6J83tfwV8ZtGxzUi31mDeJuTt
El0giK9VVhM0vBxlIxM7RkJjF/NhgF3kX+iADO6vzfcBdLH9bnZZkxvLtJpRlq+O
cwoNR5LitMjLD6Qp2geoMmuaanEpPKi0npFdnmojRtAarucSVoHq9vkuMOdKuy8=
=E4eg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 02:18:38 UTC