Re: shapes-ISSUE-99 (special cases): special treatment of rdfs:Resource and rdf:List in sh:valueClass (and possibly elsewhere) [SHACL Spec]

Holger,

Your observation about the absence of explicit rdf:type triples for
rdf:List aligns with my observations about OSLC specifications, namely
that rdf:type triples are often viewed as superfluous and are
therefore omitted from data graphs. That is why we need other ways to
links shapes to data.

-- Arthur

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Holger Knublauch
<holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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, 29 October 2015 20:17:19 UTC