- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 18:49:06 -0400
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> 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