- From: Iovka Boneva <iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 09:24:59 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org

Le mar. 19 mai 2015 22:26:36 CEST, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > I don't understand why Well defined schemata are defined so closely. > > > Definition [Well defined schema] > > A shape expression schema S is called well defined if for all negated shape > label !T in negshapes(S), the corresponding dependency sub-graph > dep-subgraph(T, S) is a directed acyclic graph. > > > This excludes any schema where a negated shape references a > recursively-defined shape, even if that shape does not involve negation in > any way. Indeed. > Is this required? It is a sufficient condition for soundness, maybe not necessary. > Would it be possible to instead just say that in a > well-defined schema there can be no loops involving negation? It might be possible, however (for now) I do not know how to prove it. Also, I do not know how the validation algorithm would go, whereas I do have a validation algorithm for my proposal. -- Iovka Boneva Associate professor (MdC) Université de Lille http://www.cristal.univ-lille.fr/~boneva/ +33 6 95 75 70 25

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 07:25:32 UTC