- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:04:11 -0500
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Holger, Defining shapes for SHACL has a lot of benefit. It's a good test for the expressivity of SHACL. Why do you predict long debates? -- Arthur On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 6:56 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: > shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec] > > http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/122 > > Raised by: Holger Knublauch > On product: SHACL Spec > > In a previous resolution > > https://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05 > > we decided to publish a (RDFS) vocabulary file plus a separate SHACL file with shape definitions. I no longer support the creation of the Shapes file, because it may cause long debates about details and thus take away resources that are better spent elsewhere. A shapes file is not needed by all SHACL engines, and could instead be published as open source projects outside of the WG. > > If the WG has spare time at the end, we could revisit this, but for now I think we should get the essential stuff done and postpone this deliverable indefinitely. > > >
Received on Monday, 15 February 2016 17:04:41 UTC