ISSUE-61 (was: Comments on SHACL, especially regarding compatibility with OSLC Resource Shapes 2.0)

On 10/13/15 5:12 AM, Jim Amsden wrote:
> 2.1.1: I prefer the shape pointing to the thing it constrains - this 
> keeps the constraints out of the vocabulary and allows the vocabulary 
> to be easily reused in different contexts with different constraints 
> for different purposes.

This is an old and still unresolved ticket:

     http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/61

There are indeed arguments in both directions, and I could live with 
something like sh:scopeNode that points from a shape to a node because 
the direction of the current sh:nodeShape is already covered by rdf:type.

Question: where would those triples live - would they still be in the 
data graph or in the shapes graph?

Would be good to have this syntactic issue resolved before more and more 
people (and test cases etc) use our current sh:nodeShape vocabulary.

Holger