Re: [Editorial] Moving section 5 into section 3.3?

I am in favor of this change


On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Holger Knublauch <>

> Dimitris, others,
> wouldn't it from a logical point of view make most sense to move the
> content of section 5 (Results Vocabulary) into 3.3 (which is currently
> empty)? Providing details of the validation results will help with the
> definition of the individual constraint components, where we already
> explain details of which fields of the validation results must be produced
> under which conditions. It avoids forward references. I remember we
> discussed this issue before and some people preferred to put the result
> vocabulary to a later stage because it is less relevant than the library of
> core components, but then we are not producing a tutorial here but a formal
> spec. Giving a beginner's introduction to SHACL is not the goal of this
> document (and we would fail miserably no matter how hard we tried).
> Thanks,
> Holger

Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Monday, 16 May 2016 06:29:37 UTC