- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 18:32:47 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
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. peter 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