W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > April 2015

Re: vote for supporting "closed shapes"

From: Iovka Boneva <iovka.boneva@univ-lille1.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:34:26 +0200
Message-ID: <55389272.5060708@univ-lille1.fr>
To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
CC: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>, public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Hello Erik,

What do you mean by "to constrain additional triples to certain 
vocabularies" ?
By 'additional triples', do you mean those that do not match anything 
mentioned in the constraint ? That is, if the constraint is something 

:name String | (:firstName String, :lastName String)

then is it the case that the additional triples are all those whose 
property is different from :name, :firstName and :lastName ?

By vocabulary, do you mean a set of IRIs allowed as properties for the 
triples ?

If my guesses are right, then all this can be easily handled by shape 
expressions (and their bag semantics). Note that closed shapes are also 

Best regards,

Le jeu. 23 avril 2015 01:23:53 CEST, Erik Wilde a écrit :
> hello martynas.
> On 2015-04-22 16:12, Martynas Jusevičius wrote:
>> could you maybe illustrate what you mean with a little example? Thanks.
> http://www.w3.org/2015/ShExpressivity#coverageEtc is explaining all of
> this much better than anything i could do.
> ideally, i'd also like to see features that would allow to constrain
> additional triples to certain vocabularies. but that's probably a
> problem because RDF has no way of identifying vocabularies. maybe by
> providing URI prefix patterns? that's just a quick and dirty idea, but
> these are the kind of features that are needed.
> cheers,
> dret.

Iovka Boneva
Associate professor (MdC) Université de Lille
+33 6 95 75 70 25
Please note that I read my mails twice a day at 9:00 and 13:00 (CET)
For urgent matters, please contact me by phone
Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 06:35:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:41 UTC