- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:32:59 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/5/2015 9:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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? Yes, although at evaluation time there is no relationship between the sh:not and the property constraints. So this is not a case we would want to promote or encourage. Holger
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 23:33:34 UTC