Re: shapes-ISSUE-103 (Syntax simplifications): Can we further simplify the syntax of some constraint types? [SHACL Spec] from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2015-11-04 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from November 2015)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:27:58 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <563A947E.3090109@gmail.com>

On 11/04/2015 03:24 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
[...]
> This is correct, as long you add an rdf:type triple, which your example didn't.
> 
> The following would be legal:
> 
> sh:constraint [
>     a sh:PropertyConstraint ;
>     sh:class ex:c ;
>     sh:predicate ex:p
> ]
> 
> However, even then sh:PropertyConstraint cannot have sh:not, which is limited
> to sh:NodeConstraint.
> 
> Holger
> 

So

sh:constraint [
     a sh:PropertyConstraint ;
     a sh:NodeConstraint ;
     sh:class ex:c ;
     sh:predicate ex:p;
     sh:not [...]
 ]

is OK?

peter

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 23:28:34 UTC