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

Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 08:11:42 -0700
Message-Id: <201605121511.u4CFBqtm014050@d03av01.boulder.ibm.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
We can always make changes to the agenda if there is agreement to do so 
but, while I saw Dimitris's proposal, following the whole thread, which 
sidetracked into the discussion on inferencing, didn't leave me with the 
feeling that Peter agreed, at least not completely. His first response 

> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, 
> public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
> Date: 05/10/2016 09:02 AM
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-133 syntax simplifications & regularizations
> OK, no more sh:defaultValueType.  Good.
> How does the syntax of constraints work now?
> Can any triples be removed from the following RDF graph without changing
> its validation behaviour?  If so, which ones?
> ...

And then Peter posted on "Several options for syntax simplification and 

Although there is some positive feedback on the proposal in this response 
it doesn't strike me as a non-controversial topic but if Peter has a 
chance to speak up I'd love to be corrected!
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud

Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 05/11/2016 10:26:59 PM:

> From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 05/11/2016 10:28 PM
> Subject: Re: RDF Data Shapes WG Agenda for 12 May 2016
> Buried in the flood of emails this week was a proposal from Dimitris
> to spawn off sh:sparqlConstraint from sh:constraint, and AFAIK Peter
> was in favor of that too. It feels like a non-controversial topic 
> that would simplify the spec before publication, because each of the
> 4 constraint properties would then correspond to exactly one 
> constraint type. At a later stage we could decide whether to rename 
> sh:constraint itself.
> I second Dimitris' request to have this on the agenda, if still 

> Thanks,
> Holger

> On 12/05/2016 9:50, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Unfortunately, with Peter not being able to attend, some of the very
> live discussions I've seen on the list will have to continue via 
> email for now. I hope we can still make some progress though.
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2016.05.12
> Note also that I won't be able to chair the call past the hour so 
> Eric will chair the last half hour.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web 
> Technologies - IBM Cloud
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 15:12:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:33 UTC