- From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:06:54 -0400
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Holger, The text is ok but we are missing a precise spec for the triples that are matched by a shape. -- Arthur On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > 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. > > kc > > > On 4/30/15 4:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> >> FWIW I have added some support for closed shapes to my draft >> >> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#ClosedShape >> >> 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 >> SPARQL's NOT EXISTS etc). >> >> Thanks >> Holger >> >> >> > > -- > Karen Coyle > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600 >
Received on Thursday, 7 May 2015 19:07:22 UTC