- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:08:38 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Is this the official position of the W3C RDF Data Shapes Working Group? Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 09/27/2016 04:02 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > Since that "shape" would not have any constraints (as it cannot be the subject > of any triple), nothing would happen. > > Holger > > > On 28/09/2016 8:53, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> So this is legal SHACL then? What happens if this shape is used in SHACL? >> >> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> Nuance Communications >> >> On 09/27/2016 03:44 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >>> The rdfs:range of sh:shape is sh:Shape, and the "Value Type" is sh:Shape, too. >>> None of these enforce formal syntactic constraints. We could add a sh:nodeKind >>> restriction to sh:shape in the SHACL.ttl file, but haven't done so for other >>> properties either. >>> >>> Holger >>> >>> >>> On 28/09/2016 4:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>> It appears to me that >>>> >>>> [prefix declarations] >>>> >>>> s:s1 rdf:type sh:Shape ; >>>> sh:shape 7 . >>>> >>>> is a syntactically correct shapes graph. >>>> >>>> Is this so? If not, what makes it not be so? >>>> >>>> >>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >>>> Nuance Communications >>>> >>> >
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 23:09:09 UTC