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

Re: ISSUE-180: Should IRI paths always be interpreted as predicates? [SHACL - Core]

From: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:06:37 +0300
Message-ID: <CA+u4+a2YRkHbq=0C6oHC4YsrFZYQ3yksD-t=tzoXZvTqsdFUxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>
Cc: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, Public-data-shapes Wg <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > Personally speaking, I think paths give a great advantage & flexibility
> in
> > SHACL
> > they also allow for a consistent way to do recursion so I would be in
> favor
> > of keeping them.
>
> I assume you mean traversing transitive properties a la
>
>   schema:
>   <S1> sh:property [
>     sh:predicate "foaf:knows*/foaf:name" ; sh:nodeKind sh:Literal
>   ] .
>   (I ducked issue the representation by using a SPARQL path string.)
>
>   data:
>   ex:Sally foaf:know [ foaf:know [ foaf:know [ foaf:name "Sue" ]]].
>
> vs. recursive shapes a la
>
>   <S2> sh:property [
>     sh:predicate foaf:knows ; sh:hasShape <S2>
>   ].
>
> Am I correct?
>

Exactly
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2016 09:07:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:36 UTC