- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 11:15:33 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
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. Holger
Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 01:16:08 UTC