Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015

Thanks Peter for sending this in. 

Arnaud J Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM


   Peter F. Patel-Schneider --- Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015 --- 
    From:"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>To:"Arnaud Le Hors" <lehors@us.ibm.com>, "" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>Date:Wed, Aug 19, 2015 5:18 PMSubject:Re: RDF Data Shapes Agenda for 20 August 2015
  My opinion on the topics under consideration and votes on proposals that may come up: SHACL FPWD - publishing the other two documents is going to require separate reviews for them Yes, on opening issues 79 to 82 ISSUE-79 - I don't see much benefit, but I also don't see a reason not to make this change, so I would vote 0 ISSUE-76 - execution order should not matter - having execution order matter prevents useful optimizations ISSUE-70 - the issue has to do with whether ex:shape ex:property [ sh:predicate ex:myProperty ; sh:minCount 1 ; ] . is a legal shape. I say that if ex:shape2 ex:property ex:constraint . ex:constraint sh:predicate ex:myProperty ; sh:minCount 1. is not legal then neither should the version with a blank node. ISSUE-65 One problem with the current setup is the treatment of sh:valueShape. It appears that the scope and filter of the shape are both ignored, which seems to be wrong, but it also seems to be wrong to consider them. I think that it would be better to have sh:valueShape not be a shape but instead be a constraint. (Then I think that the names of shapes and constraints should be changed.) peter