W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2016

Re: ISSUE-68: Updated definition

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:00:42 -0800
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56E242EA.1070903@gmail.com>
Is there a shape-in-shape construct in SPIN that needs pre-binding?   That
would presumably give excellent guidance on how to do shape-in-shape in SHACL.

Looking at
https://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-modeling-20110222/#spin-rules-thisUnbound
it appears that SPIN is doing something different from what is needed for
sh:hasShape, however.

It appears that magic properties are where pre-binding is most needed.  This
is even outside a FILTER construct, so there is a need to allow multiple
values for the same variable.

Given that pre-binding is in use in SPIN, is there a definition from SPIN that
can be used in SHACL?

peter


On 03/10/2016 05:40 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> Yes, pre-binding has always been used in SPIN.
> 
> Holger
> 
> 
> On 11/03/2016 3:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Is something like pre-binding needed in SPIN?
>>
>> peter
>>
>> On 03/08/2016 10:06 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> I had updated the definition of pre-binding but forgot to send an email to the
>>> list:
>>>
>>> http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/#sparql-constraints-prebound
>>>
>>> I believe we need implementer's feedback to see whether that definition is
>>> clear and precise enough, but that applies to everything in the current draft,
>>> so I hope we can live with that definition for now and close the ticket.
>>>
>>> HTH
>>> Holger
>>>
>>>
> 
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 04:01:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:30 UTC