Re: shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec] from Arthur Ryman on 2015-10-29 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from October 2015)

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:53:39 -0400
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAApBiOk5Nirkg+Hcf=SVYWQ0+-3O4-HXfdR=56MkDsvQ+nEWJg@mail.gmail.com>

Peter,

I had the same reaction. However, I think we do need to define the
language binding for SPARQL extensions. Aside from the injected
variable bindings, we need to specify any SPARQL functions that are
made available.

-- Arthur

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:22 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-108 (operations): Should operations be specified? [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/108
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> Section 10 of the SHACL spec discusses operations.  It does not require that they be implemented.
>
> Should this section be removed from the spec?
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 20:54:07 UTC