- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:58:05 +1000
- To: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I have no strong opinion on this one and have never used closed shapes. My feeling was that sh:nodeShape is more a "system-level" property and not usually part of the "real" data. I agree it may sometimes make sense to even control rdf:type triples. Would be good to have feedback from the ShEx folks. It does seem to indicate that different people may have different variations of "Closed shapes". Holger On 7/29/2015 8:22, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I am not in favour of exempting certain properties from closed shape > considerations. If rdf:type and sh:nodeShape are exempted, why not > rdfs:label, for example? > > peter > > > On 07/27/2015 05:11 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> ISSUE-58 [1] is about how closed shapes shall be defined. I propose to close >> this ticket by adopting the currently drafted (simple) syntax and semantics: >> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl-ref/#ClosedShapeConstraint >> >> Holger >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/58 >>
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2015 23:58:40 UTC