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

Re: Shapes and/vs constraints

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:15:24 -0700
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <570FDE3C.1080001@kcoyle.net>


On 4/14/16 9:27 AM, Jim Amsden wrote:
> Why do we need that? Possibly because classes and properties are
> different things and its useful to have different ways of describing
> constraints on them.

Thanks Jim. That makes sense, and Holger says something similar, but 
isn't the main reason for the SHACL effort that it is not possible to 
constrain RDF in this way? So how are these constraints defined? Is 
SHACL needed to define these constraints on SHACL classes?

kc

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2016 18:15:56 UTC

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