Re: difference between sh:hasValue and sh:in

Ok sounds good to me (and I believe Peter too). In the interest of 
saving precious meeting time I hope everyone agrees that we don't need 
to raise a formal ISSUE for this small change. I went ahead and allowed 
bnodes as list members at sh:in:

https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/commit/e93cfc6c7b86f39ed354df5760a6b31df33f8a62

Please let me know if anyone sees problems with this. Like similar 
changes, this edit will be approved when the WG approves the next 
release of the document.

Holger


On 12/12/2016 17:21, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote:
> Allowing bnodes would always fail validation when the data graph and 
> the shapes graph are not the same but I do not see any other problem.
> Since it does not affect the language I suggest we allow it for both, 
> someone might find a use case for this
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Holger Knublauch 
> <holger@topquadrant.com <mailto:holger@topquadrant.com>> wrote:
>
>     What would you suggest:
>     a) disallow bnodes for both
>     b) allow bnodes for both.
>
>     I have no strong opinion on this. Does anyone have use cases for
>     bnodes in sh:hasValue?
>
>     Holger
>
>
>
>     On 12/12/2016 7:34, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>         sh:hasValue allows blank nodes but sh:in does not.
>
>
>         This difference does not seem to have any rationale. If blank
>         nodes are
>         allowed for sh:hasValue then they should be allowed for sh:in.
>
>
>
>         Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>         Nuance Communications
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dimitris Kontokostas
> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig & DBpedia 
> Association
> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://rdfunit.aksw.org, 
> http://aligned-project.eu
> Homepage: http://aksw.org/DimitrisKontokostas
> Research Group: AKSW/KILT http://aksw.org/Groups/KILT
>