ISSUE-122: Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)?

no-shapes-file

Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)?

State:

CLOSED

Product:

SHACL Spec

Raised by:

Holger Knublauch

Opened on:

2016-02-10

Description:

In a previous resolution

https://www.w3.org/2015/11/19-shapes-minutes.html#resolution05

we decided to publish a (RDFS) vocabulary file plus a separate SHACL file with shape definitions. I no longer support the creation of the Shapes file, because it may cause long debates about details and thus take away resources that are better spent elsewhere. A shapes file is not needed by all SHACL engines, and could instead be published as open source projects outside of the WG.

If the WG has spare time at the end, we could revisit this, but for now I think we should get the essential stuff done and postpone this deliverable indefinitely.

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec] (from jamsden@us.ibm.com on 2016-02-16)
2. Re: shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-02-16)
3. Re: shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-02-15)
4. Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-02-11)
5. shapes-ISSUE-122 (no-shapes-file): Should we postpone publishing a SHACL shapes file (indefinitely)? [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2016-02-10)

Related notes:

Display change log