disjointness between property constraint and inverse property constraint and default value type in the core

The current spec says in Section 2.3 that sh:PropertyConstraint and
sh:InversePropertyConstraint are disjoint.  Is this a statement of truth, or
is it something that has to be verified?

The definition of disjoint only depends on rdf:type and default value type.
This is a different definition of classes than in the rest of SHACL.

Default value types appear to be part of the extension mechanism.  However,
they have effect in the core.  This appears to indicate that implementations
of the core need to implement at least this part of the extension mechanism.


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 19:40:24 UTC