- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 14:16:37 +1000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 15/01/2016 12:14 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > That is not sufficient because there are several sources of information input > into SHACL. For example, is a node an instance of a class for scoping if the > rdf:type triple is in the shapes graph, or do only triples in the data graph > count for this? Ok, these questions need to be answered on a case-to-case basis. For your specific issue above (if I understand it correctly), I have added a clarifying sentence to state that the triples must be in the data graph. https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/de401e2c411b616bb821fd7d313cebad0835d4c5 Which other places would require such clarifications? Thanks, Holger > > peter > > > On 01/14/2016 03:14 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: >> 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 Friday, 15 January 2016 04:17:16 UTC