W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: a SHACL specification based on SPARQL

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:00:42 +0000
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8C8CD191-47FF-4556-A184-2718929C6F13@cyganiak.de>
To: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>

> On 17 Mar 2015, at 20:00, Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Concerning RDFS, I'd prefer to see SHACL specified purely in terms of
> graphs, i.e. what you get after entailment.


> For example, if I specify that ex:hasFather is
> zero-or-one, and have the following:
> ex:Luke ex:hasFather ex:Anakin .
> ex:Luke ex:hasFather ex:Darth .
> ex:Anakin owl:sameAs ex:Darth .
> then there should be no violation.

Aren’t you contradicting yourself here?

In the owl:sameAs example, the graph clearly contains two ex:hasFather triples for ex:Luke. If ex:hasFather is zero-or-one, and SHACL is specified purely in terms of graphs, then that has to be a violation.

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2015 11:01:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC