- 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