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

Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? [SHACL Spec]

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:25:56 -0700
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF886CD0E7.AAEF47A1-ON85257E19.0006EC90-88257E19.0007DECC@us.ibm.com>

I understand there is room for misinterpretation given the last weeks of 
discussion on documents but you're missing my point. The issue at hand is 
about what is to be considered "Core/Lite" and this is what I'm talking 
about. This is orthogonal to how many documents we produce.
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group

From:   Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
To:     public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Date:   03/30/2015 05:50 PM
Subject:        Re: shapes-ISSUE-25 (core/lite): What's in Core/Lite? 
[SHACL Spec]

On 3/31/2015 10:25, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:

Can we not separate these two pieces the way HTML and JavaScript+DOM are? 
With HTML5 one can define custom elements using Javascript and the two 
co-exist gracefully. Why isn't a similar approach possible here?

Why should we do this? Did the recent poll create a convincing majority 
for the "separatists"?

Why should we break the current consistency of the single document? I have 
done my best to move the SPARQL bits to part 2 (sections 7 onwards), as 
requested by several people including yourself, Arnaud. The core bits are 
clearly marked at such. I have proven that this spec can be implemented 
without SPARQL. This should be enough for now. We can decide for a split 
at some later stage, once we are certain that all pieces work together. 
Introducing a split now is unhelpful towards that goal.

Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2015 01:26:33 UTC

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