- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:00:42 +0000
- To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Arthur, > On 17 Mar 2015, at 20:00, Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote: > > Concerning RDFS, I'd prefer to see SHACL specified purely in terms of > graphs, i.e. what you get after entailment. […] > For example, if I specify that ex:hasFather is > zero-or-one, and have the following: > ex:Luke ex:hasFather ex:Anakin . > ex:Luke ex:hasFather ex:Darth . > ex:Anakin owl:sameAs ex:Darth . > then there should be no violation. Aren’t you contradicting yourself here? In the owl:sameAs example, the graph clearly contains two ex:hasFather triples for ex:Luke. If ex:hasFather is zero-or-one, and SHACL is specified purely in terms of graphs, then that has to be a violation. Richard
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 11:01:11 UTC