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

On 03/24/2016 01:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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.

There is no definition of the concept of default value type in the document.


> 
> Holger

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2016 20:50:17 UTC