- 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>
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