Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes"

hello all.

On 2015-04-24 08:58, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> It looks like there is some confusion around whether this discussion is
> about requirements for the future RDF Data Shapes (SHACL) standard or
> about ShEx and its variants:

yes, and my apologies for being unnecessarily confusing.

> Erik, I believe, is wanting to support a requirement for SHACL. Further
> complicating the matter is that Erik deferred in his requirement
> description to the recently published (outside of the working group) ShEx
> questionnaire.

i was simply lazily referring to the useful explanation in the ShEx 
questionnaire, without it making clear enough that all i wanted to do is 
refer to the explanation of open/closed/constrained shapes.

> Since RDF Data Shapes (SHACL) working group has now published its first
> public draft of the Requirements and Use Cases deliverable, I believe it
> would be best to make SHACL requirements contribuitions in a form of the
> review comments for this document. This would help to eliminate confusion.

i agree, but that's what i was trying to do. the UCR spec says that 
comments should be sent to this list, and so i did. is there a more 
formal way how to make those comments, other than sending email to this 
list?

thanks and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

Received on Monday, 27 April 2015 19:14:25 UTC