- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:44:47 +1000
- To: public-rdf-shapes@w3.org
Hi Peter, during the recent WG meeting, several people have expressed their opinion that if public commenters expect proper responses from the WG, then they should also write properly formulated issues that clearly show what problem they see. Otherwise we end up with longish email threads that are frustrating for everyone involved. From the email below it is not clear what problem you are reporting. Thanks, Holger On 5/12/2016 6:25, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Data Graph > > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> . > ex:i rdf:type ex:c ; > ex:p ex:v1, ex:v2, ex:v3 . > > Shapes Graph > > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> . > @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> . > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > ex:s rdf:type sh:Shape ; > sh:targetClass ex:c ; > sh:property [ sh:class ex:c ] . > > The graph below is an acceptable validation report for validating the above > data graph against the above shapes graph. > > @prefix ex: <http://example.org/> . > @prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> . > @prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . > @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . > ex:ValidationResult rdfs:subClassOf sh:ValidationResult ; > [] a [ rdfs:subClassOf sh:ValidationReport ] ; > sh:conforms false ; > sh:result [ a ex:ValidationResult ; > sh:resultSeverity sh:Violation ; > sh:focusNode ex:i ; > sh:resultPath ex:p ; > sh:value ex:v1, ex:v2, ex:v3 ; > sh:sourceConstraintComponent sh:ClassConstraintComponent ] . > > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications >
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2016 03:45:26 UTC