- From: Simon Steyskal <simon.steyskal@wu.ac.at>
- Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:56:16 +0200
- To: Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <vrodriguez@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: Serena Villata <serena.villata@inria.fr>, Sabrina Kirrane <sabrinakirrane@gmail.com>, "ODRL Community Group (Contrib)" <public-odrl-contrib@w3.org>
> I wonder how can we specify this beyond an English sentence. haha yes, we may have to hack some fancy semantics together for that ;) > But... which should be the reference software to validate the > expressions? unfortunately there doesn't exist any (official) validator for SHACL yet, but most of the constraints are expressible in SPARQL anyway. Holger Knublauch gave it a first shot in [1], but he is currently focussing on implementing a SHACL API for TopQuadrant's TopBraidComposer. cheers, simon [1] https://github.com/HolgerKnublauch/shacl-lite --- DDipl.-Ing. Simon Steyskal Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna www: http://www.steyskal.info/ twitter: @simonsteys Am 2015-06-04 11:45, schrieb Víctor Rodríguez Doncel: > Yes, hence my concern about "having conflicts for the conflict > resolution" > odrl:conflict may declare prohibitions take precedence in general, but > one specific permission may gain precedence if so declared with the > odrl-ld:precedenceOver. > I wonder how can we specify this beyond an English sentence. > > Also, I think the RDF Shapes spec is truly clear. But... which should > be the reference software to validate the expressions? > I have peeked here http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/ShEx, but I am > unsure about it... > Where should I look at? > > Víctor > > > El 04/06/2015 11:28, Simon Steyskal escribió: >> 4) Well to some extend.. While odrl:conflict only allows to state that >> in case of conflicting rules either the permission or prohibition >> takes precedence, odrl-ld:precedenceOver would allow to specify that >> specific rules (if they are applicable too) can take precedence over >> others regardless their respective type.
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2015 09:56:45 UTC