- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 14:40:41 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 6/12/2015 13:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Changing the order of triples in a shapes or data graph document, or even > just running the system again, might end up producing different answers if > care is not taken in fleshing out this approach, even in cases where there > is no negation or even disjunction. Does anyone have a test case that demonstrates such a non-deterministic scenario? AND, OR and XOR all use rdf:Lists and are therefore ordered. sh:valueShape needs to walk through all values of the property, so order shouldn't matter there either. (Apologies if the answer to these questions is already somewhere on the mailing list - I found this topic hard to follow) > Picking a bad propagation rule for a > "Duh" is going to produce something that I think will be unusable---I don't > even know if there is any good set of propagation rules. Maybe it would help if we made sh:hasShape return three possible values: true, false and unknown. Then the writers of custom SPARQL queries can better specify how they are going to treat the undefined cases. I believe we need the "unknown" value anyway, e.g. when a JavaScript implementation encounters a SPARQL query that it cannot handle. Thanks, Holger
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2015 04:42:55 UTC