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

Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close)

From: Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:08:31 +0200
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OFEEF341AE.255D6E7F-ONC125804B.0062C402-C125804B.0063A3BB@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 10/13/2016 09:58:21 AM:

> Making a feature optional basically means it cannot be used 
> reliably. We have too many optional features already because there 
> is always someone who will be against something, or has a specific 
> implementation strategy in mind. Instead of adding further optional 
> features, we should go the opposite way. Engines that don't want to 
> support these features simply should not be allowed to claim SHACL 
> Full compliance, but some smaller dialect.


I'm the first one to say that everytime something optional is included in 
a standard interoperability suffers so I certainly share your sentiment on 
that front but you might want to be careful what you wish for. Remember 
that if we can't have at least 2 implementations of SHACL Full (in our 
timeframe), we won't be able to exit CR. I have yet to hear where the 
second implementation is coming from and making it harder is most surely 
not going to help get one.
For it's worth I know of several SHACL Core implementations so at least we 
should be able to get that part to REC if we can stabilize the spec in 
Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Cloud
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 18:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:37 UTC