Re: Properties v classes in validation

Holger Knublauch <> wrote on 08/31/2015 05:26:24 PM:
> ...
> > And this has to be set as a Graph-level/global constraint, right?
> Yes, if you prefer to call it as such, this is graph-level. 

This isn't just a matter of what I prefer. That's what the spec call it as 
far as I understand:

7.1 Graph-level ("global") Constraints

Isn't that what we are talking about?

> Technically it's just a Shape like any other one, only that it has a
> sh:scope instead of the (more common) class scoping. The sh:scope is
> set to iterate over all nodes that appear as object in an rdf:type 
> triple. Alternatively it could also be turned into a 
> sh:AllObjectsScope statement. (We may need to expose this to some 
> practical experience to see which design patterns emerge).
> Holger

We ought to be consistent in how we call things or confusion will prevail. 
I have to tell you that reading through the spec I find a lot of 
inconsistencies throughout and I think the spec would benefit from 
adhering to more consistency. Not a showstopper for FPWD but something to 
worry about for the long term.

Arnaud  Le Hors - Senior Technical Staff Member, Open Web Technologies - 
IBM Software Group

Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2015 02:52:07 UTC