W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > January 2015

Re: shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified values

From: Dean Allemang <dallemang@workingontologist.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 15:41:31 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+oZZw_PMY5_NCRTUwedSvr+Z1ko6rAKuVBN+H3gGU1Ag3J=nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
The issue that S9 is about (as Peter outlines here
is that it should be possible to add constraints in subclasses where none
existed above.  The ICV example on that page seems to address this quite
directly; at one level, it doesn't represent a constraint, while at the
next level down, it does.  The meaning of this might not be fully clear - I
have added a paragraph to the description on the Stories page that I hope
clarifies it.  Basically, it seems to me that the ICV code has got it

So, far from being impossible, it seems that there is a solution presented
right on the wiki.

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 7:10 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue
Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:

> shapes-ISSUE-11 (S9 impossible): S9 is about existing but unspecified
> values
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/11
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product:
> Story S9
> https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S9:_Contract_time_intervals
> appears to require constraints that state that a property has a value but
> this value is not specified in the graph.  Do any proposals cover this
> requirement?  Is this a constraint at all?
Received on Friday, 9 January 2015 23:41:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 9 January 2015 23:41:59 UTC