- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:20:24 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 09/30/2015 05:06 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > On 10/1/2015 9:36, Arnaud Le Hors wrote: >> Unfortunately with Arthur out we won't be able to discuss additive repeated >> properties so I selected a few other issues I hope we can make progress on. >> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2015.10.01 >> -- >> Arnaud Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - IBM >> Software Group >> > > Hi Arnaud, > > if somehow possible, I would like to see whether anyone disagrees with > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html > > This is more general than the repeated properties question and would fit well > with the discussion on ISSUE-90. > > Furthermore, I would appreciate if anyone has feedback on ISSUE-95, which > feels like a hopefully non-controversial simplification. > > Sorry for being pushy and impatient on this, but I have both topics > implemented on branches right now, which makes further clean up tasks > difficult and too speculative. > > In exchange, I would push back ISSUE-77 and ISSUE-82 as they are rather > uncritical details. > > Thanks, > Holger I don't think that the changes in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html speak to the difference between additive and conjunctive interpretations of repeated properties. If that is supposed to be what they resolve then I don't think that they are the right way to go at all. The changes in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Sep/0128.html appear to speak much more to better support for literals a focus nodes. They do seem to be a reasonable start at the changes required for this purpose and maybe for a general rationalization of the constructs in SHACL. They certainly resolve ISSUE-84 and ISSUE-88. peter
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 04:20:58 UTC