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

On 19/02/2016 23:21, Dimitris Kontokostas 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"?
>
>
> How about introducing sh:NonLiteral or the previous sh:UriOrBlankNode 
> option for sh:nodeKind?

Yes that would be one solution. We originally had these "Or" kinds but 
then removed them because I assumed we had the sh:class work-around in 
place. I like the simplicity of the current sh:nodeKind; here we are 
just shifting complexity from one corner to another.

Holger