- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 08:54:29 +0100
- To: public-shacl@w3.org
On 18/05/2022 00:32, Holger Knublauch wrote:
....
> One way to evolve your use cases could be to introduce an optional
> boolean flag such as sh:matchEquality true which could be a second
> argument to sh:equals, sh:hasValue and sh:in. Another way would be (as
> you say) to introduce completely new constraint components.
Another option ("as well as", not "instead of") is to describe a
validation mode.
It would also cover the case where the data were to be canonicalized as
some triplestores already do.
>
> Maybe this should become a GitHub issue so that a SHACL 1.1 WG can pick
> this up?
...
> PS: Given the increasing interest in SHACL, I guess once a 1.1 WG is
> created, many people will suggest new features and improvements. All it
> needs is a couple of dedicated individuals to drive the process and
> build a functioning WG.
Nowadays, the way forward is for the CG to start working on material to
show community active contribution. A CG final report, or reports, would
be input to a WG. It shows that there will be active participation, as
well as community interest (in other people doing work :-)
For SHACL, the WG can be of a relatively short duration - I think the
active-CG phase would surface the vast majority of the mature,
considered options. That should also cover implementations of the CG
outputs.
See the CG as the old-style WG steps of UCR phase + initial proposals.
Andy
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2022 07:54:43 UTC