- From: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 15:53:36 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Thanks. Please check if the updated description correctly describes your objection. > On Mar 20, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > The latter, in this case. > > However, there are situations in SHACL-SPARQL where implementations can come > up with different validity conclusions when processing the same data against > the same not ill-formed shapes graph. > > peter > > On 03/20/2017 11:37 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: >> Peter, >> >> Please clarify. Do you mean to say that two implementations could come to a >> different validity conclusion when processing the same data against the same >> not ill-formed graph? Or do you simply mean to say that they are not required >> to let the user know that the shapes graph is well formed? >> >>> On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> The >>> bigger part of this problem is not behaviour of SHACL implementations on >>> ill-formed shapes graphs but their behaviour on shapes graphs that are not >>> ill-formed. >>
Received on Monday, 20 March 2017 19:54:10 UTC