- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:03:34 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Not having heard anything else in this thread for a month, I believe this ISSUE-124 could be closed. FWIW I have been heavily using sh:group and sh:PropertyGroup in our TopBraid code base recently, and believe it is doing a decent job for what it is supposed to do. We use it to automatically populate resource forms with labeled sections, providing a kind of "aspect-oriented" modeling where shapes are used to describe mix-in facets of an object. Holger On 7/03/2016 9:07, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Could you suggest a replacement? As I said, I think certain details > are better left to the Vocabulary document. > > Holger > > > On 7/03/2016 8:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> That's not suitable in a specification document. >> >> peter >> >> >> On 03/06/2016 02:55 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> Fixed: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/86dc939b2955eb153cf196f72735bbaee15ce94b >>> >>> >>> >>> (like in other places, I assume that some details of the built-in >>> vocabulary >>> such as ranges and domains are left to the separate SHACL vocabulary >>> document). >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> On 7/03/2016 4:39, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >>>> shapes-ISSUE-124 (sh:group): sh:group is only mentioned in examples >>>> [SHACL - >>>> Core] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/124 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider >>>> On product: SHACL - Core >>>> >>>> There is no description of sh:group in the SHACL document. It is >>>> only used >>>> in an example. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 08:04:07 UTC