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

> 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://
Research Group: AKSW/KILT

Received on Friday, 19 February 2016 13:23:09 UTC