- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:04:07 -0700
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Here are some mentions of recursive shapes, most from the WG mailing list,
but a few from other places.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/shex-primer/ IssueShape
- recursion can be replaced by transitive closure of ex:related
- can be turned into condition on nodes with ex:related values
- data would normally have a type marker
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jan/0160.html
Polentoni
- recursion can be replaced by transitive closure of ex:knows
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0187.html
Private email to Jose:
I don't know how a multi-valued approach would work. It appears to me that
recursion over negation splits the choice space.
Consider, for example,
sh = not p sh
sha = or ( q sh ) ( r sh )
on
a q x .
a r y .
x p y .
y p x .
I think that a should belong to sha, but I don't see how to achieve this
without considering multiple models.
peter
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0301.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0309.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0449.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0439.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Mar/0353.html
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0083.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0129.html
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-data-shapes-wg/2015Jun/0180.html
NB: Change 'and' to ',' in the syntax
http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04972
A simple problematic case:
Shape <Sh> { !:p @<Sh> }
Graph 1 :a :p :b .
:b :p :a .
Graph 2 :a :p :b .
:b :p :c .
:c :p :a .
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2015 23:04:43 UTC