ISSUE-31: Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL
unitary semantics
Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- SHACL Spec
- Raised by:
- Peter Patel-Schneider
- Opened on:
- 2015-03-28
- Description:
- Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL, with the high-level language constructs defined using that semantics, or are there going to be two semantics for SHACL, one for the high-level constructs and another for the rest.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: Advanced notice of proposal to be made on our weekly call to move us forward (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-05-28)
- Advanced notice of proposal to be made on our weekly call to move us forward (from lehors@us.ibm.com on 2015-05-26)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-04-09)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-09)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2015-04-09)
- Re: shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-04-02)
- shapes-ISSUE-31 (unitary semantics): Is there going to be a single unitary semantics for all of SHACL [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-03-28)
Related notes:
Resolution: Close ISSUE-31, agreeing that we will only have one single governing semantics for all of SHACL
See http://www.w3.org/2015/05/20-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03
Display change log
