- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:10:49 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Thanks, Peter. I have generalized your comment into
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/191
which includes a link to a change set
https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/292f12936181ca2d3fd5c096a7880f2de6054f02
The WG would appreciate if you could check for any errors in these
updated definitions.
Holger
On 18/10/2016 11:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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 04:11:26 UTC