Re: shapes-ACTION-35: Proposal for lists (ISSUE-99 and ISSUE-119)

On 19/02/2016 11:12, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Also, we have not yet talked about the other special case in the current
>> draft: if sh:class is rdfs:Resource then we currently allow any blank node or
>> IRI even if it has no rdf:type. How else would we specify that? It would
>> require a complex sh:or between two sh:nodeKind constraints - very ugly. Shall
>> we add yet another special syntax just to keep sh:class "clean"?
> Not at all.   Where is the need to use rdfs:Resource for "anything"?  This can
> simply be done by saying .... nothing!

Nope. "Nothing" would include literals. The trick is to use sh:class 
instead of sh:datatype.


Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 01:16:08 UTC