- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 08:39:51 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 03/06/2016 08:46 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: [...] > On 7/03/2016 6:59, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] >> The UML-like diagram is misleading. It uses rdfs:Resource in a way >> different from SHACL. > > Do others agree that I should take that diagram out? Could you clarify what is > wrong about its use of rdfs:Resource? rdfs:Resource is not a SHACL superclass of sh:Shape or rdfs:Class. SHACL does not require that the fillers of sh:scopeNode be SHACL instances of rdfs:Resource. As well, SHACL does not require that fillers of rdf:type be SHACL instances of rdfs:Class. SHACL does not require that fillers of sh:scopeClass be SHACL instances of rdfs:Class or fillers of sh:filterShape be SHACL instances of sh:Shape (except, perhaps, when using the default type stuff). peter
Received on Monday, 7 March 2016 16:40:22 UTC