Re: Question on closed shapes

Holger, the text looks fine, but I think we need to come up with a term 
other than "closed shape" -- it seems to me that is not going to be how 
most users express this concept. That said, I'm struggling to come up 
with a usable suggestion -- but I'll continue to think on it.


On 4/30/15 4:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> FWIW I have added some support for closed shapes to my draft
> To those who suggested this feature: does this look about right?
> The design currently excludes rdf:type and sh:nodeShape. Does that make
> sense or must even those properties be explicitly enumerated via
> sh:property?
> (Other interpretations of "closed" shapes could be expressed via
> Thanks
> Holger

Karen Coyle
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:13:16 UTC