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

Holger Knublauch <> 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