> > 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"? How about introducing sh:NonLiteral or the previous sh:UriOrBlankNode option for sh:nodeKind? -- Dimitris Kontokostas Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, http:// http://aligned-project.eu Homepage:http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 13:23:09 UTC