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

On 25/03/2016 5:39, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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?

We have in general not yet decided how to handle various invalid shape 
graphs, e.g. what errors are reported where. The first step would be to 
write down (in the spec) what is invalid. A second step could be to 
define metashapes to verify those. If someone finds other scenarios that 
need to be marked as invalid, please raise them as issues.

> 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.

The abstract *concept* of default value types is used by the core, while 
the specific property sh:defaultValueType may not be needed by the core.


Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 20:34:10 UTC