- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 15:27:13 -0700
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
My view on ISSUE-69 is quite simple. SHACL should not be using XML Schema datatypes in ways that are not supported by their definition. peter On 07/27/2015 05:22 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > ISSUE-69 [1] is about whether strings with language tags shall also count as > string valued. Here is an example: > > ex:Product > a sh:ShapeClass ; > sh:property [ > sh:predicate skos:prefLabel ; > sh:datatype xsd:string ; > ] . > > In my proposal, both of these are valid: > > ex:MyProduct > a ex:Product ; > skos:prefLabel "Car" ; # xsd:string > skos:prefLabel "Auto"@de . > > I believe this matches users' expectations, i.e. if sh:datatype is xsd:string > then rdf:langString should be included. I believe Peter argues that this > deviates from how XSD Schema Datatypes work, but I believe this argument is > weak and we should favor intuitiveness over formal details in this case. We > would of course document this contract well. I have not seen anyone use > rdf:langString in rdfs:ranges or OWL restrictions. > > Also, how else could people specify the common case "xsd:string or > rdf:langString": I guess it would require some complex OrConstraint that will > be a pain to parse and implement by all tools. > > So my proposal is to close ISSUE-69 by adopting the semantics implemented in > the current draft: > > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/#AbstractDatatypePropertyConstraint > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/#hasDatatype > > Holger > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/69 >
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 22:27:51 UTC