- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 08:37:47 -0800
- To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The shape is satisfied if a node has a p-filler of b AND (a p-filler of c OR
a q-filler of d). In OWL constraints this would be
Ep b ^ ( Ep a v Eq d )
The closure condition might be something like
~ Ep ~{a,b} ^ ~ Eq ~{q} ^ ~ (EP ^ P not in {p,q})
However, I don't think that it is even clear just what the closure condition
should be.
peter
On 03/04/2015 09:57 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
>
> On Mar 5, 2015 2:09 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
> I think that your method only works for certain shapes.
>
> Consider, for example, a value of p is b AND a value of p is c OR a value
> of q is d
>
>
>> I don't understand this shape, I think this should always fail unless b
>> and c are equal.
>
> The closure filter here is a function of the entire shape. If the shape
> includes raw SPARQL code constructing the filter would require a
> semantic analysis of the SPARQL code.
>
>> You are right about SPARQL, it never occurred to me that we would allow
>> it in closed shapes.
>
>
>
> peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU+IZbAAoJECjN6+QThfjzCM8H/ih/XanuGhgcz6MCcQxk/Ds3
sZ2lWkdORDpFKa/3hl50Rkti1XcvOlB2NipCE89SSBVWxt2+J5Egsx6Ud7KtTbVb
q5wEDNPOBOOhdIEFh+bA9d1e4LLvO4cAP6VC4DxnHsgfAxD+MrdgV/xltDAu2FRn
qcgjzSKn1QS/FlSEcHs32t+ym6KDYbIPrfmL60sbiHoQLNLSgqtpmHposIdoqcd0
noVqxv8Me01CL1NqkOB4VJvSD8YNhT0LQF+LujRu2M4EpgXL05dAgUu4epyvwJjg
UigAo2kTloFrf11qyGs+5x8G7tJ2mdvzRHmeWsB0k3AWGU84w7IhkFwGqwPKtzc=
=d2HE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 16:38:23 UTC