On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > On 11/03/2016 15:57, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > Ok, we can leave this ticket open here as a reminder that this needs to be > clarified. Like the other unwritten details about sh:property vs > sh:inverseProperty vs sh:constraint, this will be cleaned up once we have > resolved the general metamodel discussion. > > > I believe this ISSUE-134 can be closed now: Section 2.3 now includes a > paragraph: > > The classes sh:PropertyConstraint and sh:InversePropertyConstraint are > disjoint, i.e. it is illegal to have shape definitions that use nodes that > are instances of both classes - either explicitly stated via rdf:type or > implicitly via their default value type. > > Can we say that all constraint types are pairwise disjoint? we can get in similar cases when someone uses sh:NodeConstraint and sh:InversePropertyConstraint this means that constraint IRIs can be reused but only with same constraint types Dimitris -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http:// http://aligned-project.eu Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 07:43:27 UTC