- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 09:14:20 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
The spec currently has section 1.1 where we state that certain terms from RDFS are used with slightly different meaning in the SHACL spec. Maybe, to satisfy the issue you raise below, we could expand this section a little bit to clarify that "being in instance" means something like ASK { $type rdfs:subClassOf* ?class . $instance a ?class . } Then, "being a class" means $type=rdfs:Class and "being a shape" means $type=sh:Shape. Would this help? Holger On 15/01/2016 2:09 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > SHACL currently depends on the answers to several class-based questions, including > - when is a node a class > - when is a node a shape > - when is a node an instance of a class > but how these are determined is not completely spelled out in the SHACL documment. > > I think that there needs to be a complete definition of these relationships in > the SHACL document and test cases to back up the definition. > > peter >
Received on Thursday, 14 January 2016 23:14:55 UTC