- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 16:04:08 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Regardless of whether this issue is moot or not, appealing to a few specific cases is not going to be relevant to deciding the general issue. peter On 07/28/2015 03:29 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 7/29/2015 0:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> ISSUE-29 is about how to specify the meaning of SHACL high-level constructs. > > It was already decided to use SPARQL as much as possible. I therefore think > that only the sub-issues mentioned below remain. > > (Just trying to remove formal work items). > > Holger > > >> I do not see that the issues mentioned below have anything to say on this >> topic. >> >> peter >> >> >> On 07/27/2015 04:48 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> Ticket 29 [1] was supposed to provide guidance on the high-level direction of >>> SHACL. I believe the ticket has now been split into sufficiently precise >>> sub-topics, esp ISSUE-47, ISSUE-63, ISSUE-66 and ISSUE-52 so that (in the >>> interest of making actionable progress) ISSUE-29 should be closed. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/29 >>> > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 23:04:50 UTC