Re: my vote on ISSUE-70

Hi Peter,

I believe we are talking about the same thing (the first option). At 
validation runtime there is no need for special treatment of the blank 
nodes (where the property is marked with a sh:defaultValueType). So for 
example, the engine can safely assume that every typeless blank node 
value of sh:valueShape is indeed a sh:Shape.

The pre-computation of the "missing" triples is entirely optional and 
may be done by a tool to support validation of a shapes graph itself, 
when the user requests that. For example, if the values of sh:valueShape 
shall be validated against the constraints of sh:Shape, then the triple 
would be needed and the provided SPARQL query can be used to "infer" 
those triples prior to "meta"-validation.

Holger


On 8/27/15 7:15 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> ISSUE-70: blank node default type
>
> PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-70, by stating that sh:valueClass constraints do not
> need special treatment of blank nodes, but that the implicit rdf:type triples
> for certain blank nodes can be pre-computed by an engine whenever the user
> requests validation of shape structures.
>
>
>
> I don't understand this proposal.  Does it say that these constructs, and
> similar ones, never need rdf:type triples (no special treatment)?  Or does it
> say that type triples are needed for non-blank nodes that appear in these
> constructs and that missing type triples for blank nodes that appear in these
> constructs can be pre-computed somehow (special treatment)?
>
> I'm OK with the former, but not with the latter.
>
>
> peter
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 22:26:08 UTC