- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 13:37:12 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 10/26/2014 9:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Consider the following situation:
>
> Domain graph:
> a rdf:type A .
> Ontology
> B = { b }
> Constraints
> spin:constraint [ sp:text """ CONSTRUCT { _:cv a
> spin:ConstraintViolation } WHERE { ?this rdf:type B } """ ]
>
> Is there a constraint violation here or not? Where is this behaviour
> specified?
[I assume you meant to write a rdf:type B above].
It would be a constraint violation, because there would be a SPIN
constraint that looks for owl:oneOf triples under closed-world
interpretation.
>> Constraints are unordered and could be executed in parallel.
>
> As opposed to rules, which are potentially ordered, right?
Yes. spin:rules can be ordered, but that is really a different topic
from constraint checking.
I believe your other comments have been handled in parallel emails
(gosh, this thread is becoming complex - I am feeling sorry for those
returning to their desk after this weekend ;) )
Holger
Received on Sunday, 26 October 2014 03:39:39 UTC