W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > April 2016

Re: shapes-ISSUE-134 (knowing inverse): does SHACL syntax distinguish inverse property constraints [SHACL Spec]

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 10:42:32 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a1Z=jyFFef3dWVmFC3XOXGc7g1ZT1gvmmwLVn3KQsOOqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>

> 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


Dimitris Kontokostas
Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association
Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http://
Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2016 07:43:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:31 UTC