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

Re: Shapes and/vs constraints

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:18:49 -0400
Message-Id: <201604141918.u3EJIrDe012673@d03av02.boulder.ibm.com>
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
Cc: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote on 04/14/2016 02:15:24 PM:

> From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
> To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
> Date: 04/14/2016 02:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Shapes and/vs constraints
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
I wasn't proposing that sh:abstract applies SHACL classes. Rather 
sh:abstract is a node constraint on a scope class that indicates that 
class shouldn't directly have instances. But maybe I'm not understanding 
your issue.
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2016 19:19:29 UTC

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