Re: implementing today's resolution

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 05/31/2015 11:00 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> thanks for starting to bring structure into the suggested refactorings
> (also in your later email). I do believe we need to tackle them one by
> one, and break them into separate ISSUEs. So below are some references to
> tickets (I raised a few of them recently):
> 

On the contrary, I believe that tackling these issues one by one will end up
with something that does not have a clean conceptual basis and thus that
will be hard to understand and that it will be hard to determine whether the
result is reasonable.  I thus strongly feel that there first needs to be a
determination of what the foundations of SHACL will be.

peter

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVbDHYAAoJECjN6+QThfjzwDYIALCqQGa+rfEeORiI0tXhB5xG
VKSYGXDd7Ep7qJlvsPBLkunpKZE/XjBi1P2EMD92WQAvC9jI4MkkbsG/ThqB8VFZ
iOstJFclKeu9qx7ajgXEk6w2AAaMp9Pgmh9LiaHhreax06Tc6HFd2Gv7fSm1Amqt
VFBWlsKJAu0uzUXFnogn4F9wjwHr2ygwwOJDI7FkXOX/RrgSQOW7dUfXE0LoyASc
bhCEgERokyeHqSDZRmSyYv2Mac4YWIGnqdVA5Qpfe+C4caoPqMm/JYjH35Jln5E4
e+VozvH3BxA7+oJaqyZ7otnzJdYvljh0iu87r3B0c6C4/CDznwV6LqF7y2vDEeo=
=7J8v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 10:20:43 UTC