- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 16:04:04 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Richard/Peter, I believe any specialization mechanism should be monotonic in the sense that if G satisfies B and B specializes A then G satifies A, i.e. B can only add constraints. Monotonicity excludes "closed shape constraints" since triples that are unknown to A may be known to B. This is a very common situation, e.g. B adds some properties. -- Arthur On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I believe that the best way to achieve this is to allow conjuncts and > disjuncts to be shapes. > > peter > > > On 03/28/2015 01:15 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> shapes-ISSUE-24 (specialisation): Can shapes specialise other shapes? >> [SHACL Spec] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/24 >> >> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak On product: SHACL Spec >> >> How to define a shape that is based on another shape, in other words, to >> satisfy the new shape one must satisfy the old shape plus additional >> constraints? >> >> This interacts with ISSUE-1 (inference) and ISSUE-23 (punning). >> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVFw5KAAoJECjN6+QThfjzkm0H/joSUi4XnIHlwniGqKoO8z1h > zr6x4LYiOaaT2fiI1r8ORikhbK4+CtyXt5ByQqFO0UcSbw4IAtDVyA6iZR99bmfe > rV7jnK+R7CFufqCC4RU7+7c14nymhth2We2vfL6KczdIMVPBzl1J/yA5KBy2EeKu > NMOrqfC8L2qW8EUmTpJBounds40QC3oTSzBwJ01Ek8SOW1gqbo3cxtcXTd3bCw3o > 12PEdRaGjI4NTBC5HzxbMeziEnSGXXNUyU/JCPdIYxXz9kZB+PQmAHykmjm5AVRT > ccnkO/Ozm9Upxi60w5DLZ3mAzZaoQAXKb7d5yv6V3bxz4o5BlqyABxt7g5mIXp8= > =/eYE > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Thursday, 2 April 2015 20:04:33 UTC