Re: Reopening the discussion on sh:targetShape

Yes quite possibly we should have a document similar to SHACL-AF but for 
proposed features? Or is keeping PRs open sufficient?

In general I think if there is wide agreement on features then they 
could directly go into SHACL-AF, as that is an evolving draft towards a 
possible 1.1 release. Then I think it's also OK to use the sh: namespace.

Holger


On 10/07/2020 06:25, Roman Evstifeev wrote:
> I wonder if it would be more appropriate to create something like 
> shacl-cg org on GitHub to have a namespace https://github.com/shacl-cg/ ?
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 22:50 Vladimir Alexiev 
> <vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com <mailto:vladimir.alexiev@ontotext.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Havard and I are thinking of putting this in an rdf4j namespace.
>
>     Cheers!
>