- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 18:21:26 -0700
- To: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
- CC: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/21/2015 12:11 PM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote: >>> >>>> There are several implementations for ShEx, which is a similar >>>> language to the one described there. >> >> ShEx has exclusive or, the core has inclusive or. This is a >> significant difference. >> >> >> It has already been said that the people behind ShEx are also members >> of this WG and that we are open to adapt the language. > > What does this have to do with the differences between ShEx and the > SHACL core? > > > Because you are saying that there is a significant difference between > ShEx and SHACL and I say that the people behind ShEx are flexible enough > to adapt what has been proposed for ShEx to SHACL. This also does not, by itself, mean that implementations of ShEx demonstrate implementation feasibility of the core of SHACL. > As an example, I am more inclined to have both inclusive and exclusive > or, so the user can chose which one depending on its validation needs. I'm not sure how adding features makes the core of SHACL more implementable. > Best regards, Jose Labra peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVDhkWAAoJECjN6+QThfjzOQkH/RZH+BSOEAJluWFHSzscaPnK jJ1GS4XLCgKT5eOboZBhMUSMiiiI2jRRX3eZ7NEyJttGyo4AEfTzLwQSIjAEiUIt pIvjOu+XIRt1g27/yKQVkXNniONu8aHtGqXYLWZZTNXwbM6FeNVXDop0VWbsRYf1 Ao+dUmsaDtsnsuzFH3kzAur+2L5lLkvyBxz+EpRzq9phOYYpEj3xvtDLz/+PP2uU KCSLxWHeD4No6Wg3A31mK/HHqV5AgmIriXsATRM9523OQm1z2K/nAqrvw1acWQ90 HJkwwJuWi3ZU99pS58afR7fSi9e0czNeb/5GLHqZi2HGCt8q8K7STGJyqb9afiI= =T5J7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Sunday, 22 March 2015 01:21:55 UTC