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

Hmm.  The wording of the sentence on rdfs:Resource appears to state
differently on first glance.

So sh:class rdfs:Resource is then special cased to something peculiar to
SHACL.  That's even worse for users.

And neither of the special cases for sh:Class appear to hold for
sh:directType, although that is contrary to the first sentence in 3.1.5.

The wording for sh:classIn is also confused.


On 02/18/2016 05:15 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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 02:33:17 UTC