- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:37:03 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Your specific example (recursion) seems to be already covered by
http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/22
Do you have other examples that would require to open this new ticket?
Holger
On 6/10/15 11:57 PM, RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> shapes-ISSUE-66 (ill-founded): SHACL should not be ill-founded [SHACL Spec]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/66
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: SHACL Spec
>
> The current SHACL working draft is ill-founded, in that there are shapes and graphs where the determining the shape violations cannot be correctly done.
>
> One example is the graph
>
> ex:i rdf:type ex:C .
> ex:i ex:p ex:i .
>
> and the shape
>
> exs:S rdf:type sh:Shape;
> sh:classScope ex:C ;
> sh:property [ sh:predicate ex:p ;
> sh:minCount 1 ; sh:maxCount 1 ;
> sh:valueShape exs:S ] .
>
> where there is no way to determine whether ex:i has a shape violation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 22:37:35 UTC