- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:46:26 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I believe we are supposed to publish another working draft before reaching CR status at the end of this year. If we want to give enough room for feedback I think we ought to do this soon after the upcoming virtual face to face meeting. Looking at the list of open tickets, many are entirely editorial and others could be closed simply because we ran out of time and won't be able to give them justice (e.g. ISSUE-179, ISSUE-176). However, there remain some tickets with impact on the syntax and implementations: ISSUE-92: partitions https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/92 Eric promised to work on an update to the partition chapter. Without progress, I don't think we can include these features. We risk running out of time, and I want to be in a position where I understand all implications for an implementation (e.g. the potential worst-case complexity). ISSUE-180: Path nodes. https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/180 The suggestion is to change the path syntax so that IRIs are always named predicates while all path expressions (inverses etc) must be bnodes. I believe Dimitris and I agree on this change. ISSUE-186: validation report properties. https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/186 The suggestion is a simple vocabulary fix: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2016Oct/0040.html The latter two are hopefully easy to resolve in the next meeting. A big unknown remains the topic of pre-binding (ISSUE-68 and ISSUE-170). The SPARQL EXISTS group seems to be making slow but steady progress, yet we need this done before we can move to CR. BTW what ever happened to the Compact Syntax? It looks like we are running out of time and it won't happen. Maybe a differentiator for ShEx? Holger
Received on Friday, 11 November 2016 00:47:01 UTC