W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: RDF Data Shapes WG agenda for 21 April 2016

From: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:55:30 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJadXXL1hWqh5_BSJHgS5UdJ+nreE7ind1heFHjXOLGwhFZ=3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I noticed that there was a wrong name for one of the issues in the
Proposals page.

It was Issue-57 whose original name was "Group cardinality" but appeared as
"Qualified cardinality" in the proposals page. I think it could give a
false impression that qualified cardinalities are already supported in
SHACL, so the Issue could be easily closed.

However, the issue was about cardianalities over groups of expressions
which are more complex to handle and, as far as I know, they are not
currently supported by the current spec.

Although I raised the issue, I would not oppose to leave cardinalities over
groups out of current SHACL, however, I think the proposal should signal
that this expressivity is not handled. I updated the proposals page
according to this:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Proposals#ISSUE-57:_Group_cardinality

Regards, Jose Labra

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 1:05 AM, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> There seems to be a set of issues we might be able to close, pretty much
> as a mere administrative matter.
> Otherwise I selected some issues for which Peter's position is known given
> that he sent regrets.
>
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.04.21
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies -
> IBM Cloud
>
>


-- 
-- Jose Labra
Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 15:56:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC