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
https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/User_Stories#S9:_Contract_time_intervals)
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
right.

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