Re: ACTION-18 S40 Describing Inline Content versus References

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

What other effect does the reference tag have?  If it is supposed to do a
web get then say so, and the working group can decide whether that is in
bounds or not.


I guess that S40 could be accepted as a story, without all this worry about
just what requirements it produces.  However, I've been pushing back against
stories that have such vague effects on SHACL.


If S40 is accepted then there should probably also be stories about similar
stuff, especially schema.org.

peter


On 04/10/2015 07:15 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/9/15 7:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: I put some new
> comments in the wiki page section.  Here is a summary:
> 
> - The story is mutating. - inline has no effect, the only effect of
> reference is to make some stuff sort of optional.
> 
>> I see your point that there is an aspect of optionality in this, but it
>> is a particular situation within that. Beyond optional I would consider
>> this to be instructions on whether to attempt de-referencing or not, or
>> whether to expect to encounter the O->S link inline.
> 
>> Stated like that, it's kind of a prelude to a constraint, stating
>> whether the constraint that follows is to be found via inline or GET. I
>> don't know if that makes it out-of-bounds for SHACL; there is a
>> definite need for it, but perhaps it is application-specific?
> 
>> kc
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVJ+TDAAoJECjN6+QThfjzkWwH/2XJX6hALY/wnwU2Prx8Ebp2
VpgvHsDtPP011klUyQV3Hnz10xXSzjsXxLAQDTU50O1khKQ+M5gCqdtrw1S9pWXb
j2s03ZuMR94QjexLF5KkDNjF6NlWhqx63GvZ+aQC9nhB5ZQDNcRWnF4ZvfW2k4CE
0rrV9FTAsaDnWeIxO4IZ6oH9H90ZpNuT2JBBpaAKzzyRbvld+fFjEUhfT6ub+VvV
DTok0j+ySgWVtyDAf/LN+XUGBCIWtv54V/S4D8qW+zQGZtd9zwp0PmsLRjrU5SD/
og2jxOfuuZFZy3DhvriPFEiBZmzblEtvrEhFXE9TDCbdgzrnjPKm7mEJU4mIaLc=
=X4aw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Friday, 10 April 2015 14:57:39 UTC