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

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

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:04:51 +1000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <56F8F3B3.9080101@topquadrant.com>
On 25/03/2016 6:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

I have attempted to define it better

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/bd690e4a513015d3856dec141cf6eb4317921c10

Holger



>
>
>> Holger
Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 09:05:25 UTC

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