- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 09:47:04 +1000
- To: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
I have no strong opinion here. We could recursively walk into shapes referenced via "and", "or" and "xor", but not via "not". Holger On 5/22/2015 7:11, Arthur Ryman wrote: > Holger, > > This is fine as far as it goes. However, I am not sure what happens if > disjunction and negation are allowed. > > -- Arthur > > On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 5/8/2015 5:06, Arthur Ryman wrote: >> >> Holger, >> >> The text is ok but we are missing a precise spec for the triples that >> are matched by a shape. >> >> >> I was hoping that my text clarifies this - if it is not precise enough then >> we need to rework it. Currently it states: >> >> TEXTUAL DEFINITION >> An sh:Error must be reported for each triple that has the focus node as its >> subject and a predicate that is not explicitly enumerated as a sh:predicate >> of the sh:property constraints at the surrounding shape. The properties >> rdf:type and sh:nodeShape are excluded from this constraint. The produced >> sh:Error must have the focus node as its sh:root, and the corresponding >> values of the triple as sh:subject, sh:predicate and sh:object. >> >> In other words, it will look at all triples that have the focus node as >> subject, except the rdf:type and sh:nodeShape triples. If any of those >> triples contains a predicate that has not been explicitly enumerated via >> sh:property/sh:predicate, then report an error for that triple. >> >> In Example 16: A closed shape: >> >> ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape >> a sh:Shape ; >> sh:constraint sh:ClosedShape ; >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ; >> ] ; >> sh:property [ >> sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ; >> ] . >> >> ex:ClosedShapeExampleValidResource >> ex:exampleProperty1 ex:someValue . >> >> ex:ClosedShapeExampleInvalidResource >> ex:exampleProperty2 ex:someValue ; >> ex:someOtherProperty 42 . >> >> >> The last resource is invalid because it has a value for >> ex:someOtherProperty, which is not declared as a property. >> >> I would like to get clarification from the ShEx people if this was the >> intention, or if this should be any more complicating. >> >> Thanks >> Holger >> >> >> >> -- 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, 21 May 2015 23:49:01 UTC