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

On 03/28/2016 02:04 AM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
> 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
> Holger
This now depends on the undefined notion of "untyped".


Received on Monday, 28 March 2016 12:59:25 UTC