W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Pragmatic Proposal for the Structure of the SHACL Spec

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 11:05:13 +0000
Cc: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, kcoyle@kcoyle.net, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <42CA270D-FF54-40F4-A853-1C9FBD0F3D73@cyganiak.de>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>

> On 20 Mar 2015, at 00:05, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> the possible problem you're pointing out has to do with having different people work independently rather than having multiple documents. The same would be true if we had one document with various sections independently edited by different people. 

You’re hitting the nail on the head.

The problem is that this WG has different people working independently.

Splitting the document makes that problem worse.

> And there are plenty of examples of specifications that depend on one another,  without having been put all into the same document (thankfully).  RDF 1.1 and its 7+ related specs is one of those. 

RDF-WG standardised 8 different languages, all of which had a long life and name recognition prior to the WG.

Received on Friday, 20 March 2015 11:05:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC