Re: on the turtle serialization of SHACL

The idea is that the existing TTL file is consistent with what is 
written in the main spec. If there are errors, I welcome bug reports. If 
we are unsure, we could add a statement along the lines of "the spec 
wins if the TTL file contradicts".

But overall this TTL file has a similar impact as any other file that 
may be imported into a shapes graph. So if someone adds a triple that 
makes sh:PropertyConstraint rdfs:subClassOf sh:Shape, and SHACL is 
defined to look for all SHACL instances of sh:Shape, then an engine will 
also treat those property constraints as shapes. SHACL doesn't do RDFS 
inferencing, so rdfs:domain has no impact unless the shapes graph has 
RDFS activated (which is outside of SHACL's concern). Changing namespace 
prefixes has no impact on behavior, changing sh:prefix triples would.

Holger


On 14/12/2016 9:50, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> The current version of the SHACL document contains "The Turtle serialization
> of the SHACL vocabulary is part of the normative specification. However, the
> values of rdfs:label and rdfs:comment in that file are not normative.",
> pointing to a Turtle document available on the web.
>
> In what sense is this document normative?
>
> Would removing the line "rdfs:subClassOf sh:Constraint ;" from the part of
> the document about sh:Shape change anything about SHACL?  Would adding
> "sh:PropertyConstraint rdfs:subClassOf sh:Shape." somewhere to the document
> change anything about SHACL?  Would removing "rdfs:domain sh:Shape ;" from
> the part of the document about sh:property change anything aobut SHACL?
> Would changing "owl:" to "rowl:" throughout the document change anything
> about SHACL?  Would changing the document in any way change SHACL?
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2016 00:32:37 UTC