Re: my vote on ISSUE-70

Is

  ex:shape2 ex:property ex:constraint .
  ex:constraint sh:predicate ex:myProperty ;
      sh:minCount 1.

legal SHACL?

If not, then blank nodes are getting special treatment.

peter

On 08/26/2015 03:25 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 22:49:06 UTC