Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
Formal Objection Status
From RDF Data Shapes Working Group
| Issue | Notes | Formal Objection | Submitted By |
|---|---|---|---|
| PRFO1 | This objection is a repeat of the previously raised CRFO2. WG feels that PRFO1 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO2. | formal objection on interoperability | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| PRFO2 | Lacking a compelling use case, the WG feels that incremental improvement in PRFO2 is suitable for SHACL 1.1/2.0, but is not necessary for SHACL 1.0. | formal objection to SHACL property path syntax | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| PRFO3 | This objection is an expanded repeat of the previously raised CRFO1. Lacking a real-world use case which cannot be addressed by SHACL as currently defined, WG feels that PRFO3 was addressed sufficiently in its prior incarnation as CRFO1. | formal objection on excluding many well-behaved shapes from SHACL | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| PRFO4 | While the WG was not able to create a definition of pre-binding that would not exclude some features of SPARQL, it was able to keep the limitations to a minimum and to define them precisely. | formal objection on pre-binding | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| PRFO5 | Claim is that change to pre-binding is substantive and requires new CR | formal objection on nature of decision | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| CRFO1 | Response | formal objection to removing features from node shapes, Follow-up | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| CRFO2 | Response | formal objection on syntax checking in SHACL | Peter Patel-Schneider |
| CRFO3 | Response | formal objection to advancing to candidate recommendation status | Peter Patel-Schneider |
