- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 09:07:40 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Could you suggest a replacement? As I said, I think certain details are better left to the Vocabulary document. Holger On 7/03/2016 8:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > That's not suitable in a specification document. > > peter > > > On 03/06/2016 02:55 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> Fixed: >> >> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/86dc939b2955eb153cf196f72735bbaee15ce94b >> >> >> (like in other places, I assume that some details of the built-in vocabulary >> such as ranges and domains are left to the separate SHACL vocabulary document). >> >> Thanks, >> Holger >> >> >> On 7/03/2016 4:39, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>> shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples [SHACL - >>> Core] >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/124 >>> >>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider >>> On product: SHACL - Core >>> >>> There is no description of sh:group in the SHACL document. It is only used >>> in an example. >>> >>> >>> >>
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2016 23:08:14 UTC