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

Re: on the closing of ISSUE-155

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:19:48 -0700
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: <97ebda3a-bdb9-3df2-9fd1-6e1804401a65@gmail.com>
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, 4 October 2016 00:20:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:45 UTC