- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:27:41 -0700
- To: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
Although it appears that Value Type in constraint component parameter descriptions doesn't really mean or do anything, it probably should have reasonable types. As well, the summary should be used consistently throughout. I have found a few places where this is not done correctly. For example, sh:datatype has value type rdfs:resource, indicating that 7 is acceptable as an sh:datatype value. As far as different wording goes, lists are described in several ways Property Value Type Summary sh:languageIn rdf:List An RDF list of language ranges (members must have datatype xsd:string) Property Value Type Summary sh:and rdf:List (members: sh:Shape) RDF list of shapes to validate the value nodes against All the constraint parameter descriptions should be checked to ensure that they use consistent language and all make sense. This is another case of loose terminology in the SHACL document. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2016 01:28:54 UTC