On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: > > > On 3 Apr 2015, at 11:25, Dimitris Kontokostas < > kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: > > > > I am not too familiar with punning as well but, what if we made a > distinction between e.g. sh:ClassShape and sh:ResourceShape (both > subclasses of sh:Shape) and used punning only on sh:ClassShape? > > Punning means you *can* name a class and a shape with a single IRI. It > doesn’t mean you *must*. > > Having two separate types of shapes, one to use in case you want to pun > and one in case you don’t, doesn’t make any sense. > > The point of punning is that you should be able to just gloss over the > difference between the two constructs (classes and shapes here), and have > everything Just Work anyway. > As I said, my experience in this is limited. In this case, how should we re-formulate the example in 1.2 [1] so that a shacl engine does not get confused and consider ex:SubmitterShape as a class? [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#introduction-overview > > Richard > -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig Research Group: http://aksw.org Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 13:32:39 UTC