- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 14:25:39 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/1/2015 14:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. Yes to the latter - I started working on those changes with the intention to generalize QCRs for the "ShEx requirements", but later discovered that they make sense in general and should therefore be treated as a topic of their own. Holger
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2015 04:26:15 UTC