Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec] from Holger Knublauch on 2015-10-22 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from October 2015)

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 06:01:55 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <562940B3.3090807@topquadrant.com>

On 10/23/15 5:56 AM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> The treatment of rdf:List is beyond the above concession and seems to
> be the thin edge of a wedge. If we special case rdf:List, why stop
> there? Why not include the whole of RDFS and maybe OWL too while we're
> at it?

In practical experience rdf:List is different from other cases, because 
*basically nobody* adds an rdf:type triple to their rdf:List node. If we 
don't special-case this, then nobody would be able to say sh:class 
rdf:List (which I believe is quite a common requirement).

Of course I generally dislike special cases, but here I see no practical 
alternative.

Holger

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2015 20:02:29 UTC