Re: optional features (was Re: ISSUE-131: Proposal to close)

Understood. But I don't think we are there yet. We could keep the 
current design and downgrade sh:hasShape to optional if nobody else than 
me is able to implement it.

Holger


On 14/10/2016 4:08, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote on 10/13/2016 09:58:21 AM:
>
> ...
> > Making a feature optional basically means it cannot be used
> > reliably. We have too many optional features already because there
> > is always someone who will be against something, or has a specific
> > implementation strategy in mind. Instead of adding further optional
> > features, we should go the opposite way. Engines that don't want to
> > support these features simply should not be allowed to claim SHACL
> > Full compliance, but some smaller dialect.
>
> ...
>
> I'm the first one to say that everytime something optional is included 
> in a standard interoperability suffers so I certainly share your 
> sentiment on that front but you might want to be careful what you wish 
> for. Remember that if we can't have at least 2 implementations of 
> SHACL Full (in our timeframe), we won't be able to exit CR. I have yet 
> to hear where the second implementation is coming from and making it 
> harder is most surely not going to help get one.
> For it's worth I know of several SHACL Core implementations so at 
> least we should be able to get that part to REC if we can stabilize 
> the spec in time.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies 
> - IBM Cloud
>
>
>