ISSUE-216: [Editorial] Shall we switch to the (mathematical) style of definitions suggested by Peter?
Style
[Editorial] Shall we switch to the (mathematical) style of definitions suggested by Peter?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL - Core
- Raised by:
- Holger Knublauch
- Opened on:
- 2016-12-06
- Description:
- In
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Dec/0030.html
Peter has suggested an alternative way of specifying how validation results are produced. It has a more "mathematical" touch to it.
How do people feel about using this style instead of what we currently have? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- ISSUE-216: How to explain syntax rules for ill-formed shapes (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-10)
- Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-04)
- Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04 (from bart_van_leeuwen@netage.nl on 2017-01-03)
- Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-03)
- Re: WG Meeting 2017-01-04 (from pano.maria@gmail.com on 2017-01-02)
- WG Meeting 2017-01-04 (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2017-01-02)
Related notes:
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-216 with the resolution above -- i.e., we're mixing in the mathematical formalism
https://www.w3.org/2017/01/11-shapes-minutes.html
Display change log
