- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:25:17 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2015-03-17 05:44-0700] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > My takeaway from Eric's description at > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ is that 1/ informal descriptions > can leave quite a bit open (e.g., how recursive shapes are handled) and 2/ > going beyond the core (for example to closed shapes) can require > significantly different machinery. Do you know of some specification or implementation strategy in which the difference between e.g. open and closed schema or single and multi-occurance is less dramatic? It's more terse in formal notation <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/Axiomatic>, but one still has to change function prototypes and impose extra logic, no? > peter > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVCCG0AAoJECjN6+QThfjzVWkH/iH0j82U02kpXglkrbkjCBC0 > JaRqGxdhEcaYEAiJxv/zqPlKl4yB30Uf9hQouwerUywqeVxb5RvHRK6g/U++nwN2 > OlDaNKW8GgjdHuXWRGipUHBkOXvfU114x51u/wofX9sxLCDsXTFCjcC8CxJWk3+J > 7ykcIVaMRfuiyYPOrZrmB+IZnMcDpzMh2s87anMvc851tGAB3ZkNOWbKMeKPGpNi > EMKgZyjBKX2nN2ycCnEJCsUvxouJa3DsBAU56TXzN9AHmkIN1AGyTGfXFidbrWlM > 5u/j/cuiu5mZP1ZtownXrfhBqSHtHmsQ4AIexd9u5LXkYcauzCVDuuIwH5KLzFA= > =lUkJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- -ericP office: +1.617.599.3509 mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59 (eric@w3.org) Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than email address distribution. There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2015 16:25:25 UTC