Another formatting proposal.

Folks,

Another issue I'm coming across is a bit of confusion regarding the semantics vs. the syntax of the RDF representation of constraints.  As an example, sh:allowedValues specifies a set of RDF Terms that constrain the targets of a given predicate.  The fact that this is a set and the fact that they must be RDF Terms would appear to be true no matter what syntax is used.  The document also states that this set must be represented as "well-formed instances of rdf:List", which would make sense in (some) RDF representations of SHACL, but would have no meaning in other syntaxes.

Would it make sense to create another style or identifiers indicates that the particular requirement is specific to the SHACL RDF representation?


Harold Solbrig