- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:39:48 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>

Peter, I am having trouble parsing your example against the abstract syntax given in [1]. Perhaps you have abbreviated it or is the grammar wrong? Your example is: S = { s closed ex:r !s [1;1] and ^ex:r iri [1,1] } Here I assume S is the schema, s is a ShapeLabel, and we are dealing with a ClosedShape. Therefore the following must be a ShapeExpr: ex:r !s [1;1] and ^ex:r iri [1,1] However, the 'and' operator only appears in ConjShapeConstraint where it combines other ShapeLabel's. How does one form conjunctions of constraints? [1] http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics/ On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > The behaviour of http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/semantics on simple > negated recursive shapes is quite bizarre. > > Consider > S = { s closed ex:r !s [1;1] and ^ex:r iri [1,1] } > on graphs of the form > Gn = { ex:i1 ex:r ex:i2 . > ex:i2 ex:r ex:i3 . > ... . > ex:in ex:r ex:i1 . } > > The valid typings for these graphs appear quite random and also quite > computationally difficult to determine. > > peter > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2 > > iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJViudIAAoJECjN6+QThfjzcuEH/3rJdR/36b6n9ylOscJ7Tm2K > UHgDy9bo9ntArUHt2cucjy1/5GtSWlZsbj5Xr82/pcu1g9CTdUhpYfk14laKp3l9 > Hb/XHZ6NmqKAoA6gVnwF6T/O/UIUY+RNF731PSLHTkn4t3FHaUnDrOfL2qbYiSC9 > DRzcgVh/neCHwgSpoFQzV+4kqeheNv5T7p1LslGRNNfP3xiUxg6E73HIF4VYzaoh > Qb9Iz1XZkxOVoUez5Vxlmqq3XpKBzzWTXOZ0uSAYujRzNyX6jPuSk8Shwkf1/w0v > ZLpG5gpoJmn5bSCthTrFMRHBU27T0We1h9Q+Igv+uuGHNigoC/+U8OmZhyU/m24= > =W74G > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 20:40:16 UTC