Re: Reopening the discussion on sh:targetShape

Initially I specified exactly the cases that we need (semanticTarget).

Then you and others suggested we generalize to filterShape (which however
is not applicable) so we arrived at targetShape.

We've implemented targetShape for the cases that are useful to us. It has
undeniably useful applications
- iterative checking
- checking of shapes by triple pattern (hasValuesIn and the like)

This is a useful interface to generalized targets. It's more useful than
SPARQL targets, which are opaque and cannot be tracked efficiently unless
the sparql is parsed.

I've documented the performance considerations (user beware). Its up to the
user to use it wisely.

Irene, I don't think it's constructive to challenge a useful implemented
feature, especially after people on this list led me to generalize it.
Sorry, I don't buy your argument that your reopening this question is
somehow better that that logician's objections.

If you can't accept it in the shacl-af spec then let's move it to the dash
spec, if Holger can assure us he'll accept it. Nobody wants yet another
"ontoshapes" namespace/spec...