Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References

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

I put some new comments in the wiki page section.  Here is a summary:

- - The story is mutating.
- - inline has no effect, the only effect of reference is to make some stuff
sort of optional.

If the only impact of all this is to make some stuff sort of optional, then
call that out directly as opposed to wrapping it up in a lot of other stuff
that is hard to wade through.  The working group can then decide whether to
have some sort of flag to make some bits of SHACL be somehow optional.  (You
can guess what my vote is going to be.)

peter


On 04/09/2015 06:54 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Sorry to hear that. However, this user story is driven by REST API use 
> cases and has been part of OSLC since the first Shape spec. What is your
> objection? Is the user story still not clear enough, or is it clear
> enough and you feel it is a bad idea? If a bad idea, please elaborate.
> 
> -- Arthur
> 
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/09/2015 02:18 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>> Adding the action # to the subject line for the benefit of the
>>>> issue tracker. See [1]. I've replied to the comments. Thanks Karen,
>>>> Peter, Richard.
>>>> 
>>>> [1] 
>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Apr/0147.h
tml
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
- - Arthur
>>>> 
> 
> I'm liking this less and less.
> 
> peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJzQzAAoJECjN6+QThfjzbs0H/RFnJGbQrXHl8fRcUBE4gJF8
oXvP/NjRw+fI+xfjir2K30AAB+zJMW+fQsxxuQbJ6xvntvAiq/aWRLLGSmLRU8fw
xnZNZFV+90Oc+jUDPSt8ZfzKoyhttKib+h/1ylDAx0Dcr4DGeH6skkdTlbjvC9EE
c4QVut7pDBkmKxgl5kqPH+68KUV2RRQSV+qQ6JLdpI7G4q3uwJ3kYlDrU9grGomK
R//PmE46LvfN6IC2JF68NfOyJvm56ELdaoIwjd4lW1crfZqVOf+h3olJq29upCGD
hqnB17TCbfs4tPYyW7bxzNPjPhagEtN9wS2M398mU0r0ZMA9SBj2vtDBy8ulMr4=
=smqt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 02:24:18 UTC