- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:16:54 -0800
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It seems that the working group is supposed to be pushing towards publication of a SHACL specification document in the near future. Does anyone have any alternatives to a SPARQL-based semantics for SHACL that they would like to put forward? Yes, I am aware that there are three potential semantics from the Shape Expressions community that might be alternatives, but is anyone going to champion either the current version of one of these semantics or have a modified version available in time for consideration by the working group? peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+UZWAAoJECjN6+QThfjz1WkIAMSruKupbQjCk4nTjSTkEvA0 pA8tdqYkubYUtaIDG1hS8z9SET2YydURneK6qYJMvkCHXzVupUZ/74L9PDzgm2uC QKyOnI3IgywHzXgU+LXTWbdyxVVcBGUoiWI5V5DH7M/FPKCScgIrNuty+03lbQW6 DivfCtZEKNI21P0Ar8WIEFDV219lFDBkrewIZfA4Nb8iOHYBwLYUMGdA9JxXo2tt agbJWwWMSrvvSyNmSXdsS49QSNjFhnTHAQRBVDoARHYUrEB4ajHAU7xlZMs8uqeg bDxE+SIURDEQVmVMVrNwlokg/ZmvNC5sBIudKbfsOQO6xC9Pp7UM4tNREWamiWg= =Xn1D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 06:17:25 UTC