- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:31:05 -0800
- To: Dimitris Kontokostas <kontokostas@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-rdf-shapes@w3.org" <public-rdf-shapes@w3.org>
The problems described in ISSUE-155 still exist in the current SHACL document. However there has been no reopening of this issue. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Nuance Communications On 10/03/2016 05:19 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > It appears that further work has been needed to address ISSUE-155. However, > the issue remains closed. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications > > > On 09/28/2016 11:37 PM, Dimitris Kontokostas wrote: >> Hi Irene, >> >> We independently came up with the exact same definition for sh:equals and I >> already adjusted all related definition in 4.6. >> I also used your suggestion for the improvement of the value node definition. >> >> Thanks, >> Dimitris >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com >> <mailto:irene@topquadrant.com>> wrote: >> >> I propose the following language: >> >> sh:equals can be used to verify that the set of value nodes is equal to >> the set of nodes that are objects of triples with the focus node as >> subject and the value of sh:equals as predicate. >> >> >> My proposal is based on the definition of a value node as: >> >> For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the >> objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the given >> property as predicate. >> >> >> I think this definition may need to be made clearer as in: >> >> For property constraints that have a sh:predicate the value nodes are the >> objects of the triples that have the focus node as subject and the >> sh:predicate value as predicate. >> >> >> If this change reads OK, then a similar language needs to be propagated to >> all constraints in section 4.6. >> >> Irene >> >> >> >> On 9/28/16, 12:10 AM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com >> <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >>From the description of ISSUE-155: >> > >> >"[Property pair constraints] talk about an (ordered) pair of properties >> >but do >> >not take an (ordered) pair of properties as arguments." >> > >> >>From Section 4.6.1 of Shapes Constraint Language (SHACL) W3C Editor's >> >>Draft 27 >> >September 2016 at http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl >> <http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl> >> > >> >"sh:equals constrains a pair of properties so that the sets of values of >> >both >> >properties at a given focus node must be equal." >> > >> >This sentence is even more incorrect now than it was when the issue was >> >raised. >> > >> > >> >It thus appears that work has not been done that has solved this issue and >> >that the working group has not adequately investigated the current >> >situation >> >before closing ISSUE-155. >> > >> > >> >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 >>
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 19:31:39 UTC