- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:50:57 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jose Emilio Labra Gayo <jelabra@gmail.com>, "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> [2014-07-18 05:49-0700]
> That seems truly bizarre.
>
> Does anyone know whether this is a desired behaviour?
It was certainly intentional that one be able to specify or verify compliance with value sets. I understand that this a bit of an anathema to OWL but it's the sort of functionality we need to provide if we want RDF to be taken seriously in most industries. For example, a substantial fraction of medical informatics concearns with specification and enforcement of value sets.
> peter
>
>
> On 07/18/2014 04:28 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
> >Yes. it is.
> >
> >I checked it here: http://goo.gl/s5kevB
> >
> >Best regards, Jose Labra
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> ><pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > I've been trying to dig through the ShEx definition.
> >
> > It appears to me that for
> >
> > <foo>
> > { ex:bar1 (ex:val1) ? }
> >
> > with graph
> >
> > ex:a ex:bar1 ex:val1 .
> > ex:b ex:bar1 ex:val2 .
> >
> > that ex:a matches <foo> but that ex:b does not.
> >
> > Is this correct?
> >
> > peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Saludos, Labra
>
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 16:51:00 UTC