- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2016 18:00:21 -0800
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
I think that the wording you quote makes it fairly clear that the set of RDF terms is the union of all IRIs, all literals, and all blank nodes, i.e., RDF term is independent of any particular RDF graph. peter On 12/11/2016 05:09 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > > > On 12/11/16 2:06 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> The SHACL document uses "RDF node" in several places. However, RDF node is >> not a term defined in RDF. The replacement should probably be "RDF term". > > Peter, the RDF 1.1 Concepts document says: > > "The set of nodes of an RDF graph is the set of subjects and objects of > triples in the graph. It is possible for a predicate IRI to also occur as a > node in the same graph. > > IRIs, literals and blank nodes are collectively known as RDF terms." > > It seems clear that nodes are either subjects or objects in a triple - but > it's less clear to me whether "RDF terms" refers only to subjects and objects > of a triple, or also of predicates. Is this made clear somewhere? Or is there > a common interpretation that I'm not seeing? > > Thanks, > kc > > >> >> In other places, only "node" is used, in particular at the beginning of >> section 3. "Node" only has a definition in RDF in the context of a particular >> graph. This causes problems for targets that are not nodes in the data graph, >> as in >> >> Data graph >> >> ex:i1 rdf:type ex:c . >> >> >> Shapes graph >> >> se:rdf:type sh:Shape ; >> sh:targetNode ex:i2 ; >> sh:class ex:c . >> >> Some occurrences of "node" should probably be replaced with "RDF term". >> >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> >> >
Received on Monday, 12 December 2016 02:00:52 UTC