- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 08:27:20 -0700
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Replying to all three of Peter's new issues: Are we really talking about
SHACL, or is this about a particular implementation? Could this be
expressed in a way that avoids tying SHACL to specific code? I know that
we agreed to use SPARQL as a formalism, but I'm beginning to doubt that
is what we have here.
kc
On 6/29/16 5:39 AM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-172 (sh:nodeKind SPARQL definition): the sh:nodeKind SPARQL definition is unnecessarily complex [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/172
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> There is no need for EXISTS in
>
> SELECT $this ($this AS ?subject) $predicate (?value AS ?object)
> WHERE {
> $this $predicate ?value .
> FILTER NOT EXISTS {
> FILTER ((isIRI(?value) && $nodeKind IN ( sh:IRI, sh:BlankNodeOrIRI, sh:IRIOrLiteral ) ) ||
> (isLiteral(?value) && $nodeKind IN ( sh:Literal, sh:BlankNodeOrLiteral, sh:IRIOrLiteral ) ) ||
> (isBlank(?value) && $nodeKind IN ( sh:BlankNode, sh:BlankNodeOrIRI, sh:BlankNodeOrLiteral ) )) .
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
--
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2016 15:27:50 UTC