Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-58 based on current draft

* Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> [2015-07-29 09:58+1000]
> 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.

ShEx closed shapes apply to all triples, without exempting any
predicates.


> 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
> >>
> 
> 

-- 
-ericP

office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59

(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.

There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2015 00:01:09 UTC