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 
was:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016May/0082.html
> 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 
regularization"
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016May/0085.html


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 
possible:
> 
> 
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016May/0080.html

> 
> 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