- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 08:53:57 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
You seem to have just given the best reason to separate them that I've heard. There's no reason why the forward references have to point to the same document. In any case, this is something that should be done when the language itself is stable. It's really editorial in nature. kc On 7/6/16 5:47 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Where does the core language depend on the extension mechanism? The > editorial organization of sections does not dictate the layering of the > actual language. The forward references into the advanced sections (e.g. > on pre-binding) are only of interest to advanced users anyway. > > Holger > > > On 7/07/2016 10:32, Karen Coyle wrote: >> The extension mechanism should be separate from the core because there >> is no one extension mechanism required - we have agreed that one can >> extend using SPARQL but one can also extend using other technologies. >> The inter-dependency of the core on the extension is therefore not >> only not required but would violate the design requirements. >> >> kc >> >> On 7/6/16 4:12 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> The proposal in ISSUE-166 is to split the spec into two documents - >>> factoring out the advanced parts. We have discussed this at length many >>> times and my view point has not changed. There are lots of benefits of >>> having a single consistent document with the ability to cross-link >>> between sections (e.g. the SPARQL definitions of the core constraint >>> components require details that would otherwise have to be duplicated >>> from the advanced sections). Anyone who is only interested in the Core >>> language can stop reading after the first part. >>> >>> PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-166 without action. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2016 15:54:29 UTC