Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 1 October 2015

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