W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > December 2014

Re: shapes-ISSUE-18 (S35 examples): S35 needs to state what constraints are required

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2014 16:53:27 -0500
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20141220215219.GA16556@w3.org>
mocked this example up in Turtle <http://w3.org/brief/NDI1>; didn't
really understand the meaning of <https://a.example.com/acclist>,
which has only a type arc.


* RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> [2014-12-19 04:01+0000]
> shapes-ISSUE-18 (S35 examples): S35 needs to state what constraints are required
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/18
> 
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: 
> 
> S35 https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S35:_Describe_disconnected_graphs talks about constraints over disconnected graphs.  However, it does not state why disconnected graphs are different from connected graphs?  Are the constraints supposed to recognize disconnected graphs?  Or are the constraints just supposed to work on disconnected graphs, and what differences in constraint handling are required for disconnected graphs.
> 
> SPIN and OWL constraints don't care whether a graph is connected or disconnected.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
-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 Saturday, 20 December 2014 21:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:11 UTC