W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-shapes@w3.org > November 2016

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-155

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>
Message-ID: <7af8e9a6-533e-a7b2-cd03-e14e037d8d65@gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:46 UTC