Re: Proposal for ISSUE-1

On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Holger Knublauch
<> wrote:
>> I think we need to let user decide is they want the rdfs:subClassOf*
>> expression added to the property path. That is why I suggested we have
>> two properties sh:valueType and sh:valueClass. Your current behaviour
>> corresponds to what I called sh:valueClass. For the case of matching
>> against just rdf:type, we have the escape hatch of treating rdf:type
>> as just another property, and constraining it's allowed value to be
>> just the desired type. However, we'd need a way to do that for what
>> you call validateNode.
> Can you back this up with requirements, i.e. do you have a use case in which
> a constraint applies to a specific class, but not its subclasses?

Holger, Yes. OSLC Resource Shapes do not add in the rdfs:subClassOf*
path. Therefore, they will in general produce different results if
SHACL always adds refs:subClassOf*. It is a goal of OSLC to adopt a
W3C standard (e.g. as evidenced by LDP). If there is no way to
reproduce the OSLC behaviour, then this is slow adoption. I see no
compelling reason to introduce a breaking change in behaviour given
that there is a simple alternative as I have outlined.

-- Arthur

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 22:49:33 UTC