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

shapes-ISSUE-180 (Path bnodes): Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core]

From: RDF Data Shapes Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 04:58:11 +0000
To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1bpTQB-0007Yv-DW@nash.w3.org>
shapes-ISSUE-180 (Path bnodes): Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core]

http://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/track/issues/180

Raised by: Holger Knublauch
On product: SHACL - Core

Currently we have the policy that all elements of a Path in RDF syntax may be IRI nodes, and only if a node is neither of sh:inversePath etc then a IRI is regarded as a PredicatePath. See rules 1. - 4. in

https://www.w3.org/TR/shacl/#path-syntax

However, this leads to complications e.g. as outlined in 2.3.5 of the current editor's draft.

I think it would be easier to have a policy that all IRI paths are counted as PredicatePaths, i.e. all complex paths such as inverse paths must be IRIs.

This is also related to the public comment mentioned in

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-shapes/2016Sep/0031.html

because with the new policy it would be clearer to describe how a "deep copy" is supposed to work.
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 04:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 September 2016 04:58:14 UTC