Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)

I have been thinking about this myself over the weekend.

Currently, there are multiple ways to achieve the same result.

One could say that such flexibility is good. Power users who fully
understand the nuances of trade offs (if such trade offs exists and I am not
very sure when they exist or not) and can use this knowledge to select the
optimal approach.

On the other hand, multiple ways mean: larger language for potential users
to understand and learn, more complexity, greater chance of confusion around
what choice do they make, questions about to what extent these choices are
fully identical and to what extent there may be minor differences and so on.
It is certainly simpler when there is one way to achieve something.

Irene 

From:  Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date:  Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 6:32 PM
To:  public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Simplification of scopes section (see also ISSUE-148)
Resent-From:  <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Sun, 15 May 2016 22:33:21 +0000

Looking at this I believe having both sh:scopeProperty and sh:AllSubjects is
potentially just adding confusion, as people could use either one for
basically the same effect.