On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 3:58 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> ex:myConstraint rdfs:subClassOf sh:PropertyConstraint . > >> > >> _:c11 a ex:myConstraint ; > >> sh:predicate ex:q ; > >> sh:nodeKind sh:IRI . > > > > We could handle that case either way. We could allow subclasses of the > system > > constraint classes, or not. I have no strong opinion. > > > > In an attempt to resolve this (better) I have started a new section 4.1.1 > > Invalid Shapes Graphs: > > > > http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#shapes-graph-invalid > > Oh. I was just looking at that section as if it had been around > previously. > Even with that section there are holes. > > I suggest that we create a (normative) shapes document that can validate shapes graphs and in section 4.1 we reference that document. We say that shapes graphs that do not validate against our shapes document are considered invalid.. What a SHACL engine does with an invalid shapes graph is up to the engine to decide. e.g. Virtuoso relaxes the sparql syntax on their endpoint interface to make it easier for the users. A SHACL engine could either reject the shapes graph or try to recover some errors with some heuristics. -- 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 Thursday, 7 April 2016 05:45:09 UTC