Re: shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what feature is required

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

The bigger problem with S6 is that there is no connection between it and a
constraint/shape technology.  Without such a connection, why should this
story remain at all?

peter


On 02/15/2015 03:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> I have contacted Ralph about
> 
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S6:_Partial_ontology_import
>
>  and made edits to clarify that this story does not contain constraints
> and is therefore out of scope as a User Story that produces Requirements.
> It is rather a possible solution outline for the problem of "different
> shapes at different times" - a solution that already works and neither
> requires changes to the languages nor new features.
> 
> I hope my edits have addressed this ISSUE.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 12/19/2014 13:06, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> shapes-ISSUE-8 (S6 Clarification ): S6 doesn't clearly state what
>> feature is required
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/8
>> 
>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider On product:
>> 
>> Story S6 
>> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S6:_Closed-world_recognition_for_e.g._for_partial_ontology_import
>>
>> 
is about partial ontology import.  Is this something that needs to be done
>> for constraints, or is it something that needs to be done in RDF?
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU4ipcAAoJECjN6+QThfjzWZcH/2Uv7+S+o2NbzoHa9kyKlfzi
hfq5QXk5i95zJdhTRK/+kkcJNnCY5FEnOq/FNSqGm65ipRIj2u1zEHABj3Oj28sg
l3GgJxRX5lQdfTxW13g8e9jw3ValsbyOCFSYfbRV7JBVLttcTXrFj0R3ufR2fghI
H4xflFXdtRnWrecNAAQjT6V1RvFEfzvOTROq4ZcVmUiVmktB35esBUfo1lRIR+SN
THcAcHsWrEPtZ1ApxuGo52WbDxdp0LN7umHsKDlx5q6F2duxlz8p/uzIqrd9gUc5
q2a5yby0fpPGhEXmUACnusZGnf4k6rFMBVURz8Z1fSvM2VQ7FZ1sG9JFkITI0xk=
=8msD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 16 February 2015 17:35:56 UTC